← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7636/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn, arose from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Hajaram P. Purohit A.Y. 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 2. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

case of Harigopal singh v/s CIT 258 ITR85(P&H) the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that ”Provision of section 271(1)(C) are not attracted to cases where income of the assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis

M/S. Jds Ventures India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Jds Ventures India Limited Income Tax Officer – 10(2)(1) V. Office No. 4, Bharat Photo House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 547, Kalbadevi Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaeca1485E Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Aggarwal Revenue Represented By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7899/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd. Tax, Tower Vi, Iv Floor, Solitaire Central Circle 8(1), Corporate Park, Chakala, Vs. Andheri (E) Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf4252A Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

been taken into account. (c) Binding decisions cited before them have not been followed. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 02. The fact shows that assessee is a company engaged in market research. It filed its return of income

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - Ccc- 7(2)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

where interest under section 234C can be levied only on returned income and not on assessed income; Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) 6. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant further prays that any other relief

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(CIT(A))-4 Mumbai 2 M/s Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt Ltd. passed under Section 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. Ground ... order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 13.07.2010. 4. Subsequently, the A.O has initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) and notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued. The assessee has filed the reply on 14.02.2013 explaining

The Dy Comm of Income Tax (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1795/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

./2022 is against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which in turn, arose from order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for assessment year 2010–11. 3. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf ... passed under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act. The AO also directed initiation of penalty under section 271F as well as section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide aforesaid order, the AO made an addition of Rs.16,36,86,460, on account

The Dy Comm of Income Tax (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1794/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

./2022 is against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which in turn, arose from order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for assessment year 2010–11. 3. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf ... passed under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act. The AO also directed initiation of penalty under section 271F as well as section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide aforesaid order, the AO made an addition of Rs.16,36,86,460, on account

The DCIT (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1793/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

./2022 is against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which in turn, arose from order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for assessment year 2010–11. 3. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf ... passed under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act. The AO also directed initiation of penalty under section 271F as well as section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide aforesaid order, the AO made an addition of Rs.16,36,86,460, on account

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

total income of Shri Mehul Jadavji Shah as income from other sources under section 56(vii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

total income of Shri Mehul Jadavji Shah as income from other sources under section 56(vii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

notional interest is to be imputed on overdue receivables, the same should be calculated using LIBOR rates. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 10. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Levy interest under section 234B and 234C

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 774/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Miss. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

payable by the assessee, which was a sine-quo-non for imposition of penalty. Amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the phrase "amount ... Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses

M/S. Samira Constructions (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result Ground no-3 is fully allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2022[SAMIRA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA ) LTD]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2022

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsamira Constructions (India) Ltd. G-8, Shrikant Chambers Next To R.K. Studio, Sion Tromboy Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aalcs6406L ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-6(2), Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Vinita Shah Respondent By : Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as [‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.02.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The assessee has raised

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1618/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalkamlesh M. Kanungo, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Abbpk9675R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Sinha
Section 133Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as [‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.02.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The assessee has raised ... Para 169] Question No. 1: If assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in notice—not striking off irrelevant matter—vitiate penalty proceedings? It does. The primary burden lies on the revenue

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

levying interest under section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 25. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The issue arising for consideration in the above appeal pertains to the Transfer pricing adjustment (“TP adjustment

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

year under consideration. 4. Other Matters: 4.1 The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and section 234C

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Erred in computing consequential interest of Rs.2,82,01,500 under section 234B of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 38. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Erred in computing consequential interest of Rs.2,82,01,500 under section 234B of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 38. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

Aniruddha N. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3924/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

interest under Section 234B/234C of the Act is disposed off as being consequential while Ground No. 6 pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is disposed off as being premature. 21. In result, appeal filed by the Assessee (i.e. ITA No. 3924/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year