“Section 271(1)(c)”

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Manisha Manish Jaitha, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

1 ITA No.409/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Ramjilal G. Johar VS. ITO 19(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Looms India Patner, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

Asst. CIT-6 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Enhance Ambient Communication Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

dispute that when the TPO has recorded his satisfaction to initiate the penalty proceedings, he sought to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the impugned penalty order has been passed by the TPO levying penalty under section ... that section.” This satisfaction recorded by the TPO is not a valid one, because the penalty proceedings sought to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted at all to the issue in controversy rather notice was required to be issued under section

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

particulars income of Rs. 90,00,000/within the meaning of explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing particulars of income.” 12. We note on the examination of records before us that various amount of unsecured loans

Trioka Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Trioka Estate Pvt Vs. Dcit – 2(3 Ltd.Citi Mall, 2Nd New Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, Andheri (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5759N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi. Ar Respondent By : Mr.V.Tripathi. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,51,47,401/- (Penalty Amount Shall Modify To The Extent Of Relief Granted By Hon’Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

S.G Asia Holding (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Cir-4(2), One Indiabulls Centre, 1102, 11Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Tower 2, 841, Jupiter Mills, Vs. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaecs 2909 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

confirming the 2 M/s S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. penalty of Rs. 10,605,51 1 imposed by the AssessingOfficer (*AO") under section 271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act'). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... decisions of the quantum in the fresh proceedings after following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is quashed at this juncture. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Mukta Gas Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Vs. Ito-12(3)(4) Mukta Gas Services Pvt.Ltd. C/O. A/1207, Ratnaakar Nine Room No.147A, 1St Floor Square, Opp. Keshavbaugh Aykar Bhawan Party Plot, Satellite Mumbai-400 020 Ahemdabad-380015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds inter alia that:- 2 M/s. Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. “1. On the facts ... period expenses respectively, Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings against the assessee by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.1

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the assessee against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act has been confirmed. 2. Since the issues are common and connected and the appeals were heard together, these are consolidated ... made 100% disallowance for bogus purchases without doubting the sales. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld.CIT(A) has granted a part relief. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was also levied, which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has also raised a ground before ld.CIT(A) that

Choice Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 27/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2012-13) Choice Diamond, Cc-4101, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafc-0677-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(1), 203, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 007 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dharshti Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

Income Tax(Appeals) -29, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13/12/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13, confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. Ms. Dharshti Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee raised ... Assessing Officer is defective as the same has been issued in pre-printed performa without striking off the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that a perusal of assessment order dated 30/01/2014 passed under section

M/S Eskay Knits (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

confirmed by the CIT(A) on the grounds taken from A.Y. 2008-09 inter alia that; “1. That, the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal ... circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law, has erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.7,00,77,680 under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with regard to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.12