“Section 271(1)”

Vazholi Lmbichi Moidy Punathil, Mumbai vs. ITO, 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvazhali Imbichi Moidy Vs. Ito 41 (1)(5) Punathil Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bmc Shivaji Market, Below Bandra (E), Mumbai. Wadla Bridge, Wadala (E) Mumbai – 400037. Pan/Gir No. Anepp9690A (Applicant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vazhali Imbichi Moidy

K S Binani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2) 1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI

Dkt Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 05.10.2024.

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 25/03/2019, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. There ... impugned order passed by the CIT(A), we find that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was dismissed observing that the Assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal without dealing with the specific grounds raised

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us It Has Been Submitted That In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2014-15 & 2016-17 Similar Penalty Levied Has Been Deleted By The Tribunal. For The Sake Of Ready Reference The Relevant Finding Reads As Under:

above, we are unable to uphold the order of the authorities below. We thus direct to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the act in the hands of the assessee. 4. Since on similar facts penalty has been deleted for earlier and subsequent year therefore, penalty

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

holding that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has committed a clear default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation (1) to that section. The Assessee therefore has claimed that the AO himself was not sure with regard ... main/first notice dated 25.03.2019 and thereafter the penalty order dated 31.03.2019 there are mis- matches in the limbs of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly, both the limbs are distinct from each other and having its own connotations. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

DCIT Circle-3 Thane, Thane vs. Dayanand Damodar Patil, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -6(4), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 22/09/2015, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a qualified chartered accountant ... read with Section 153A of the Act. In the aforesaid Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer directed initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the following manner: “23. In conclusion the following ……………… This is not a case in which the action under Income

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

erred in not adjudicating the issue of levy of penalty of Rs.22,39,280/- made under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” ITA No. 6504/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15 “1. On facts and the circumstances of the case