“Section 271(1)”

Shri Rajnish C. Bharti, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -30, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.311/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Pcit-30, Mumbai 506B, Rajendra Vihar Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To West, Mumbai-400064. C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E)-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 04.03.2020 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

should not be made is not considered as the issue involved in the. case of the HUF is completely different. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income. 8. Considering the above, total income of the assessee is computed as under: 1 Total income

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

expenditure of Rs.1.38 crores is disallowed and added to total income of the Kukreja Development Corporation ITA No.5766/Mum./2017 assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income thereof.” 11. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings before the AO were

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 03. The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in levying / confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961, at Rs. 1,90,00,000 Reasons assigned for the impugned levy of penalty are wrong and contrary ... appellant was not proved to be false. 05. The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in levying upholding levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act 1961, at Rs 1, 90, 00,000/- without giving an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard inasmuch as, neither

Sd Svp Nagar Redevelopment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikasw Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter Ld.CIT(A)) dated 13/03/2020 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act) levying penalty of Rs.39,70,050/- for the Assessment Year ... capital work in progress and also initiated penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, vide penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/06/2018, levied penalty of Rs.39,70,050/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT

I Maritime Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-15(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) I Maritime Ito-15(2) (1) Mumbai. Consultancy P. Ltd 11B 114, We Work 10Th Floor, Mumbai. Tower 1,Seawoods Grand 11B 114, We Work 10Th बिधम/ Central, Sector 40, Nerul, Floor, Tower 1, Seawoods Vs. Mumbai Maharashtra. Grand Central, Sector 40, 400706 Nerul, Mumbai 400706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaac17284B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Jayant Bhatt प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Manoj Sinha (Sr Ar) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Date 04.02.2019 Passed By The Cit (Appeals), 24 Mumbai, In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1) (C) For The Ay 2013-2014. The Assessee Has Challenged The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 4,50,000/-

held as under: “Since, substantial question of law no. III raises a jurisdictional issue going to the root of the proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act we propose to answer that question first for the reason that if it is found that the show cause ... 401/Mum/2022 I Maritime Consultancy P. Ltd. In the present case show cause notice dated 12-2-2008 issued to the Assessee under section 271(1) (c) of the said act reads as under: "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the AY 2006- 07 it appears that

M/S Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Studio Pvt. Lt D., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee company under section 271(1)(c) of the act on the ground that the assessee company has debited an amount of Rs.7,90,308/- under the head “bank charges ... Rs.7,90,308/- and thereby levied the penalty of Rs.2,60,801/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Assessee challenged the penalty order by way of filing an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty levied

M/S. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Appeals)–12, Mumbai, [„learned CIT(A)‟], for the assessment year 2014–15, which in turn, arose from the order dated 09/06/2017, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Kaypan Vinijya Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1723/Mum./2022 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared ... during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Kaypan Vinijya Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1723/Mum./2022 5. The brief facts of the case are: The assessee filed its return

Mr. Sanjay R. Tarukhia, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Appeals)-34, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1930/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2009-10) Mr.Sanjay R. Turakhia, 403, Mohini Grace Wadar Chs Ltd., Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053. Pan: Aabpt-3280-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Cit(Appeals)-34, Room No.1603, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 021. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Chokshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] , Dated 28/01/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Vide Which Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] Has Been Upheld.

Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’ ] , dated 28/01/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10, vide which penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] has been upheld. 2 2. Shri Mukesh Chokshi appearing on behalf ... appeal to the file of CIT(A). 4. Both sides heard. The present appeal has filed by the assessee assailing penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The SMC Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2551/Mum/2018 vide order dated 29/09/2022 has restored the quantum appeal

Travelex India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

case and in law, the Learned AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 11. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, accordingly, the same is not adjudicated. 7 ITA NOs. 1214/MUM/2015

Jalaram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 15(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejalaram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 15(2)(2) Room No. 15B, Ground Floor Central Facility Building No.2 Plot No. 13, Sector 19 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400705 Pan: Aabcj6334N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ritika Aggarwal Department Represented By : Vranda U. Matkari

under: - “Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

1 ITAs 1951 & 1952/Mum/2022 +IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

1 ITAs 1951 & 1952/Mum/2022 +IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER