“Section 271(1)”

Korpus Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Fort Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle -44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Recovering interest under section 244A. 20. recovering interest of Rs.62,307 granted under section 244A of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c). 11 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. 21. initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves ... Grounds of appeal Nos.18 to 21 are with respect to levy of interest under section 234B 234D, 244A and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which are consequential in nature, needs no adjudication. 16. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

Dy.CIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

being the undisclosed income, penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment in this case was framed on the basis information received from Government of India and from the French Government under DTAA ... section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

that the quantum addition of the A.O. is confirmed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The CIT(A) has over looked the provisions of section 271(1)C of the Act r.w explanation 1 and unilaterally deleted the penalty and action of the CIT(A) is not as per the provisions ... conclusive proof of concealment for the purpose of levy of penalty us 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Under the Explanation 1 to section 271 (1 c), the onus is upon the assesse, loestablish the bonafde of his claim and where the assessee discharges its onus of proving his claim

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

actual expenses incurred by the Appellant during the year. C. Penalty proceedings Erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are: assessee company is into the business of manufacturing

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

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

Asst. CIT Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhasst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Income Tax, Circle- Infrastructure Limited 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Ground Floor, Knowledge 4Th Floor, Aayakar House, Off Jogeshwari Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai - 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcf1008K Respondent .. Appellant

Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3.18,94,000/- in the instant case ignoring the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that ... finding on the ITA No. 6530/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 4 M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited issue of not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the above referred notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. The assessee has placed copy of the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

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 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Magestic Premises ... specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

purchases. (ii) On the fact and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where there is disallowance on the basis of estimation without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment, which means the assessee is at fault for both the faults given in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, in the notice dated 18.03.2014, the disjunctive ‘or’ has been used between both faults and not the adjunctive ... holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with 7 A.Y. 2011-12 Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 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

Roshan Sequeira, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Roshan Sequeira बिधम/ Dcit-24(3) Iqn Data Solutions Pvt. Piramal Chambers, Vs. Ltd., 347, Laxmi Plaza Indl. Mumbai-400012. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asbps3025N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai Dated (Not Specified) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Discernable From Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At The Outset, We Note That A Notice Has Been Issued By The Ao Dated 04.03.2014 Proposing Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee Is Bad In Law. From A Perusal Of The Penalty Notice Dated 04.03.2014, We Note That The Ao Has Not Specified The Fault/Charge For Which Assessee Has Been Put To Notice For Levy Of Penalty. Meaning, The Show Cause Notice Does Not Specify For What

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

Harmatsingh Keshaji Rao, Mumbai vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh, ITO- 17(1)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmatsingh Keshaji Rao, Ito-17(1)(5), 60, Bapu Khote Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. 2Nd Bhoiwada, Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Adepr 3814 J Appellant Respondent

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

erred in levying interest under Section 234C of the Act: Erroneous initiation of penalty proceedings 16. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271B, 271BA and 271F of the Act; The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

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

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

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

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in his assessment order, for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of the appellant. The appellant contends that the adjustment