“levy of penalty”

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.84,03,212 under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2 ITA Nos. 195 to 197/Mum/2021 A.Ys. 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03 Triumph

Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

voluntarily declared income under the IDS 2016. The explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the assessing officer. Therefore, he levied a penalty of Rs.5, 000/- under section 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961. On appeal, the NFAC, Delhi confirmed the penalty. 3 ITA 6924/Mum/2018 3. Aggrieved, assessee ... income is brought to our attention. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities below were justified in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271F. We uphold the decision of the NFAC. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

given and after the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of Rs.75,66,01,861/-. Notice to levy the penalty was given and after the reply of the assessee, the penalty to the tune of Rs.25,70,61,337/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved ... very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the penalty notice nowhere speaks about specific limb to levy the penalty because the particular charge was not tick off in the notice, therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2009-10) I.T.A NO.1425/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2009-10) ‘the CIT(A)’dated 30.07.2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Sh. Rajkumar Singh appearing on behalf ... respect of the addition confirmed by the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that in first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty, however, partial relief was granted to the assessee by restricting penalty @ 100%. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding

Air India Air Transport Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2856/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

also been held in this decision that mere failure to file audit report on time will not justify the levy of penalty as power u/s 271B is discretionary. The same view has also been taken by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Thanjavur Silk Handloom Weavers ... section 44AB before the specified date. This being the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and quash the impugned penalty order

Sankalp Retail Value Stores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2426/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sankalp Retail Value Stores बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. 401, Rajiv Premji Apts., S.V. 400020. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc5897R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty © 1065% without the AO specifying the reasons for levying an adhoc penalty and thus the levy of penalty without application of mind is bad in law. e. The penalty proceedings even if tenable suffer from legal infirmity at the stage of initiation ... appreciating that there has been no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. d. Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty is bad in law & against the principle of justice & may please be deleted. General Grounds of appeal The above Grounds of appeal are without prejudice

Gunwanti Naginj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO -21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.2,08,854/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2 Shri Gunwanti Naginji Jain

Sudha Naren Seth, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(3) (Erstwhile ITO, 11(3)(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.2,48,825/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2 Ms. Sudha Naren Seth ... both the limbs i.e concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty for the same combined offence. But we find that the ld AO though in the 3 Ms. Sudha Naren Seth quantum assessment order

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. D A Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessing Officer and CO of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J Co No. 120/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1971/Mum/2017 For Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022

initiated under section 271G of the Act. The assessee filed his reply on 18.06.2015, it was rejected by Transfer Pricing Officer and levied the penalty of ₹2,71,93,127/- under section 271G of the Act at the rate of 2% of the international transaction by passing an order dated ... alternate method of benchmarking and therefore the Transfer Pricing Officer was forced to accept the transactions at arm’s length. Therefore, he levied the penalty at the rate of 2% of international transactions. The learned CIT (A) deleted the above penalty. He held that the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2493 & 2494/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Ltd. Baroda. Vs. 4Th Floor, Pnb House, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc9210F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Modi Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1998-99 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2493/Ahd/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.06.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1998-99 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the penalty notice nowhere speaks about specific limb to levy the penalty because the particular charge was not tick off in the notice, therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes ... said contentions. The copy of notice dated 29.03.2005 is on the file in which the Assessing Officer nowhere specify any specific limb to levy the penalty because none of the charge was particularly tick off in the notice. It is not in dispute that the penalty

ITO-22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh K. Parikh, Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No.331 & 333/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Vs. Nilesh K Parikh Ito-22(2)(1) 312, 3Rd Floor 505, Ankur Building Piramal Chambers K G Marg, Prabhadevi Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aajpp2095F

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for the concerned assessment years. The common issue raised is that ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) with regard to addition of bogus purchase for the following amounts. A.Y Penalty ... Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa 82 ITR 26, where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the present case, in our considered opinion, the conduct

Dy CIT-Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S. Bhawani Engineering Works, Thane

In the result, these revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 1213 & 1214/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dcit, Circle-1, Thane Bhawani Engineering Works Vs. Room No.22, Unit No.2, Block No.2 B-Wing, 6Th Floor Rajshree Industrial Complex Ashar It Park Chitalsar, Manpada Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane(W)-400 610 Thane(W)-400 604 Pan : Aaefb1471C (Appellant) (Respondent)

together, these have been consolidated and disposed off together for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the levy of penalty are that the AO in these cases made disallowance of 20% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the 2 Bawani Engineering Works ... Bawani Engineering Works assessee will invite penalty under section 271(l)(c), That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature ". The levy of penalty is merely on disallowance of a percentage of purchases and not finding of concealment of any particular or mala-fide intention to reduce taxable income