“levy of penalty”

ITO Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

confirmed quantum addition to the extent of 7.5% of bogus purchases. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by which the returned income of the assessee at Rs. 75,04,580/- was assessed ... confirmed on account of the alleged purchases, therefore, there is concrete evidence to show that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars and, therefore, levy of penalty is justified. The ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities

Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

falsity of the assessee's claims. Further the same is also emanating from the discussion on the ground related to merits of levying the penalty as discussed later in this order. The appellant has not shown any prejudice caused due 9 Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt Ltd to the language ... coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. However, the confirmation of the addition in 10 Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt Ltd quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant levy of penalty, unless the statutory conditions are duly complied with. In the absence of a valid notice specifying the exact charge, the penalty proceedings themselves

Anil K. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Anil K. Shah (Huf), Income Tax Officer, 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, Ward-41(2)(1), Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Room No. 636, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aadha5072M Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10, Challenging The Sustenance Of Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 6,96,096/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-04-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, challenging the sustenance of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,96,096/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly the facts of the case ... assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of income with a malicious intention of evading tax and it is a fit case of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty amounting to Rs. 6,96,096/- was levied by the AO with the approval

Gangady Venkatram Reddy, Gachibowli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(2)(2), Mumbai., Bhandra

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) where there is no concealment of income. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the levy

Gangady Venkatram Reddy, Gachibowli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(2)(2), Mumbai., Bandra

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) where there is no concealment of income. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the levy

Trustar Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Lalbaug

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankartrustar Diamonds V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Ec 3070, Bharat Diamond बनाम Income Tax– 19(3), 5Th Floor, Bourse, Bkc, Mumbai – Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 400051, Maharashtra Mumbai–400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafft7349N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

ignoring the fact that the additions were made on mere estimations and presumptions and ignoring the decisions of Jurisdictional of ITAT on levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 3. The Hon’ble CIT(Appeal) erred in law and in facts in not considering case laws of Jurisdictional Mumbai Income ... bogus purchases. The AO, while levying the impugned penalty has clearly mentioned this reason in his penalty order. Therefore, he held that the levying of penalty by the AO in this case in order as per law. Hence, this ground of appeal was dismissed. 6. Before us, the ld.AR

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

passed wherein the AO has held that he found it‟s a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act as the assessee has under-reported its income in consequence of misreporting of income by way of misrepresentation of facts and making a false claim for expenditure ... Ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the Co- ordinate Bench decision in assessee‟s case, however, has sustained the levy of penalty u/s 270A and the relevant findings which are under challenge before us read as under: “IV. SUMMARISING the discussion following the Tribunal's decision in assessee