“Section 271(1)(c)”

Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Deputy Commissioner Of B-602, Foreshore Juhu Tara Road, Income Tax-Cc-3(2), Santacruz West, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400049. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abtpn 3900 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2022

facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs.1,29,780/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a letter wherein it is submitted

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

respectively, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

respectively, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT

Mr. Faiyaz Mohamedali Mithani, Mumbau vs. ITO WD. 17(1) (4)New WD. 17(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1784/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Mr. Faiyaz Mohammedali Mithani Vs I.T.O., Ward 17(1)(4) (New Ward Flat No.602, 6Th Floor, Shivam Co-Op. 17(1)(1) As Per Portal, Kautilya Bhavan, Hsg Soc. Ltd, Near Versova Metro Bandra (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Station, Seven Bungalows, J.P. Road Mumbai-400 051 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan : Aptm0643M Appellant Respondent

against the order dated 11/08/2021 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. Not condoned

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Accordingly, ground no.11, is allowed for statistical purpose. 55. Ground no.12, raised in assessee’s appeal with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is pre–mature in nature and is accordingly dismissed. 56. In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Sonicwall Technology System India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Sonicwall Technology System Dy. Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Vs. Income-Tax-10(3) (Formerly Known As Dell Software India Room No. 451, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd.) (Formerly Known As Qsft Bhavan, New Marine Lines, India Pvt. Ld.) Mumbai – 400 020 Plot No. C-70, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaacq1441N (Assessee) (Revenue)

That the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234DoftheAct. 8. That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed to the extent questioned is otherwise liable to be set aside. Additional Ground “10. That

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

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

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.605/Mum/2020

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.605/Mum/2020

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “के” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.605/Mum/2020

ACIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Idustries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as [„CIT(A)‟] in appeal [CIT(A)- 47/10025/17-18] deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA. No. 1044/Mum/2021 ... made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. Taking note of this, the CIT(A) has deleted the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order of CIT(A) is as under: “7.1 I have considered the arguments of the assessee

DCIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clsa Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accoutant Member)

erred in upholding the AO's penalty order, without appreciating that the AO had not specified the charge under section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty, either in the notice under section 274 or under the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were void-ab-initio.” 2.2 The Ground ... erred in upholding the AO's penalty order, without appreciating that the AO had not specified the charge under section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty, either in the notice under section 274 or under the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were void-ab-initio

Mystique Rose Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.“ 6. The learned Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as „the Ld. AR‟) advancing arguments on behalf of the Appellant submitted that interest income