“Section 271(1)(c)”

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sphynx Agro Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

making addition of Rs.1,68,00,000/- on account of undervaluation of the stock, Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act allegedly for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by showing undervaluation of the closing stock with respect to meat. Declining ... Bare perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has been deleted on the sole ground that the entire

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

G.F. Reality Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)}(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

Neeta Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty under aforesaid provisions and rather penalty has been initiated under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act in the present case. Even if penalty under any other provisions is leviable then it is for the Revenue

Global Softech Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 5 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Korpus Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Fort Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle -44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Recovering interest under section 244A. 20. recovering interest of Rs.62,307 granted under section 244A of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c). 11 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. 21. initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves ... Grounds of appeal Nos.18 to 21 are with respect to levy of interest under section 234B 234D, 244A and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which are consequential in nature, needs no adjudication. 16. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

Dy.CIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

that the quantum addition of the A.O. is confirmed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The CIT(A) has over looked the provisions of section 271(1)C of the Act r.w explanation 1 and unilaterally deleted the penalty and action of the CIT(A) is not as per the provisions ... conclusive proof of concealment for the purpose of levy of penalty us 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Under the Explanation 1 to section 271 (1 c), the onus is upon the assesse, loestablish the bonafde of his claim and where the assessee discharges its onus of proving his claim

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

actual expenses incurred by the Appellant during the year. C. Penalty proceedings Erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are: assessee company is into the business of manufacturing

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Asst. CIT Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhasst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Income Tax, Circle- Infrastructure Limited 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Ground Floor, Knowledge 4Th Floor, Aayakar House, Off Jogeshwari Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai - 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcf1008K Respondent .. Appellant

Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3.18,94,000/- in the instant case ignoring the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that ... finding on the ITA No. 6530/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 4 M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited issue of not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the above referred notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. The assessee has placed copy of the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 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)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Magestic Premises ... specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench