“Section 271(1)”

Milan (Industrial) Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

return of income for all these years. However, Ld. AO did not accept the assessee’s explanation and invoked Explanation 3 of section 271(1)(c) to hold that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In appeal

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Chirag Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

same are dismissed. 10. Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. Ground No. 4 relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is dismissed as being premature. 11. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.. Order pronounced

DCIT14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Offshore Marinetech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Authorities and perused the material on record. As it transpires from the record available before us that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Shahrukh Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

assessee, therefore the impugned order be set aside and the penalty levied by AO be restored. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides as under: 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course

M.P.Recycling Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M. P. Recycling Company Private Asst. Cit, Central Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai-400 020 Limited Vs. 51-53/A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcm 3153 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri R. R. Makwana Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) At The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Levying The Impugned Penalty Of Rs 2,65,12,070 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in levying the impugned penalty of Rs 2,65,12,070 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 M. P. Recycling Company Private Limited The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Assessing Officer ought not to have levied the impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act inasmuch as he has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case