← All Phrases

“deletion of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 271348 judgments

The decision most relied on for deletion of penalty is Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (115 TTJ 419), cited in 292 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deletion of penalty

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
292
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.
221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries
360 ITR 580 · 2014 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimation basis, absent concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
303 ITR 53 · 2008 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

Judgments citing deletion of penalty

Saraswati Devi Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of

ITA 1279/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Saraswati Devi Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli New Delhi-110030 Pan No.Aeipg8121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Acit Vs Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee are allowed and those of the Revenue stand dismissed. 15. Respectfully following the decisions [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For the sake of completeness, we have annulled the impugned assessment orders

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5383/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CaFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Order : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against deletion of quantum addition and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read ... Nos.5382 & 5383/Del./2016 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. This is an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5382/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CaFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Order : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against deletion of quantum addition and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read ... Nos.5382 & 5383/Del./2016 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. This is an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken

DCIT Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Omaxe Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to litigant for indefinite period on future unforeseen events.” 3.7 The learned Commissioner ultimately deleted the penalty by holding that in view of the aforesaid precedents also, the penalty u/s 271C of the Act cannot be levied. 4. The Revenue department ... being aggrieved against the deletion of penalty, preferred the instant appeal by raising following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) in its order dated 09.09.2019 for FY 2014-15 has erred in deleting penalty under

Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

ITA 7822/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

which excludes works contract was ignored - Held, yes - Whether since assessee had not been able to establish that it had acted bona fidely, deletion of penalty by Tribunal was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 10, 11 & 13] [In favour of revenue].” [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the second additional ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1738/AHD/2016[01-04-95 to 19-12-01]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Pasrag Apartment, Near Badekha Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Chakla Police Chowky, Surat. Momnawad, Gopipura, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aabcp 5942 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

were not received at all. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the plea of the appellant for deletion of penalty based on judgments given for (a) ignorance of law; (b) urgent necessity; (c) no intention to evade tax; (d) not considering the impact

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Adinathay Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1508/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Adinathya Dcit- 32(1), Enterprises, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor, बिधम/ Shop No. 6, Harjas Chs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Ltd. Divine Home Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra Colony, Borivali (W)M (East), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaqfa1188F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.12.2021, Passed By Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 M/s Adinathya Enterprises 2. The revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 1,15,516/- being GP @ 12.5% of the total bogus purchase ... discussed above and the trading results have not been disturbed. Accordingly, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court on 30thNovember, 2022. (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Amit

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 has been admitted with a substantial question of law. The assessee seeks deletion of penalty levied in view of its claim that penalties cannot be 1evied when the issue on which the tax and penalty are demanded is a subject matter ... Tribunal in quantum, we are of the view that assessee is not liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we delete the penalty levied by AO completely in both the assessment years and allow both the appeals of assessee. Consequently, the Revenue appeals are dismissed

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 has been admitted with a substantial question of law. The assessee seeks deletion of penalty levied in view of its claim that penalties cannot be 1evied when the issue on which the tax and penalty are demanded is a subject matter ... Tribunal in quantum, we are of the view that assessee is not liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we delete the penalty levied by AO completely in both the assessment years and allow both the appeals of assessee. Consequently, the Revenue appeals are dismissed

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 has been admitted with a substantial question of law. The assessee seeks deletion of penalty levied in view of its claim that penalties cannot be 1evied when the issue on which the tax and penalty are demanded is a subject matter ... Tribunal in quantum, we are of the view that assessee is not liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we delete the penalty levied by AO completely in both the assessment years and allow both the appeals of assessee. Consequently, the Revenue appeals are dismissed

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 has been admitted with a substantial question of law. The assessee seeks deletion of penalty levied in view of its claim that penalties cannot be 1evied when the issue on which the tax and penalty are demanded is a subject matter ... Tribunal in quantum, we are of the view that assessee is not liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we delete the penalty levied by AO completely in both the assessment years and allow both the appeals of assessee. Consequently, the Revenue appeals are dismissed

Dy CIT - 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Doshion Water Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) pertaining to AY 2014-15. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the deletion of penalty levied by the TPO u/s 271G of the Act, by the learned CIT(A). 2 M/s. Dashion Water Solution Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated the assessee company ... within the extended period. 4. The Revenue is in appeal before us as against the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty order levied u/s 271G. During the appellate proceedings there was no representation for the assessee and we proceeded to hear the learned Departmental Representative

Dy.CIT Circle -1, Thane vs. Shri Gangasagar Sitaram Mallah, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1544/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

basis of material available on record. 3. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from ... further appeal against the penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 22/03/2022, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, Mumabi vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 715/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3.21.90.6374; levied ... Revenue has challenged deletion of the penalty of ₹3,21,90,637/- levied u/s 271C of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is not connected

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1 Thane, Thane vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 714/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. CIT (A), 53, Mumbai has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3.21.90.6374; levied ... Revenue has challenged deletion of the penalty of ₹3,21,90,637/- levied u/s 271C of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is of the Act on the ground that deletion of penalty is not connected

DCIT Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Skylark Build, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 133ASection 143Section 153CSection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 45(3)

pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The AO has challenged the ground of deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act amounting to Rs. 93,34,664/- on the basis that the quantum on which it has been levied was deleted by the Tribunal. 2. The brief ... ground that there was no basis for the levy of penalty as the impugned addition made on bogus purchases were subsequently deleted, the penalty cannot be 3 Skylark build sustained for the same reason. The Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Techware Singapre Holdings Pte. Ltd, Singapore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1930/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit(It) –4(1) (2) M/S Techware Singapre Mumbai Holdings Pte. Ltd. Room No.1609, 16Th Floor, C/O Delotte Haskins 7 Air India Bldg, Nariman Sells Llp C.A’S India बिधम/ Point, Maharashtra, Bulls Finance Centre, Vs. 400021 Tower-3 ,32Nd Floor Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road(West), Mumbai Maharashtra,-400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafct5409E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 03/03/2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-68, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271G For The Ay 2016 - 17. 2

For Respondent: None
Section 271GSection 5Section 92CSection 92D(3)Section 92E

penalty proceedings under section 271G for the AY 2016 - 17. 2 I.T.A. No. 1838/mum/2022 Shrinivas Vijay Tandale 2. The revenue mainly aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs. 19,03,94,592/- u/s 271G of the Act. 3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that Assessee ... within the prescribed time limit of 60 days. 4 I.T.A. No. 1838/mum/2022 Shrinivas Vijay Tandale 4. The Ld CIT(A) has deleted the penalty after referring to various judgments, wherein it was held that if the TPO was satisfied by the documents which were called for and were produced

M/S. National Decorators Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1790/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) M/S. National Decorators बिधम/ Jcit Of It, Cir-25(3) 2, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Kautilya Bhawan, G Vs. Road, Vile Parle (E), Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400056. Complex Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffn0305E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 271D

there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Act [as provided for in that section]. Therefore, we direct deletion of penalty imposed by JCIT. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23/09/2022. (PRAMOD

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Evergreen Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5483/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in: Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant prays that the order of the learned ... aside and that of the A.O. be restored.” 4. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Hiten Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Raj Hiten Parikh Dcit Cen. Cir-1(2), R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annex 42C, Laxmi Nivas, 87, बिधम/ Building, Pratistha Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

For Respondent: Shri Anuj, Ld. AR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

respectively. In both the years, revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs. 2 I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 Raj Hiten Parikh 9,42,29,730/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 2,16,27,860/- for AY 2007- 08. 2. Facts in brief as culled out from the appellate ... been incorporated in the impugned appeal order from pages 6 to 18. Accordingly, he held that once the quantum itself has been deleted, then penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable and does not survive. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact that when