“Section 271(1)”

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Com of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Ward-2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2012-13 Hiren Bechar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 111, Akshardam, Ward-2(5), Kalyan Floor 5/6, Kansai Section, (Respondent) Ambernath East, Ambernath 421 501, Maharashtra. (Appellant) Pan : Aolpp7438Q

dated 28.04.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In its appeal, assessee has raised ... perusal of the assessment order we find that, nowhere the Assessing Officer has specified the charge as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act he is initiating the penalty whether for furnishing of ‘inaccurate particulars of income’ or for ‘concealment of income’. In para

Anurag Chandra, Noida vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

that interest computation be deleted accordance the law. 7. It is hereby submitted that the Ld. ITO has erred in initiating penalty proceeding section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate of income. Since correct and full details of income are shown/mentioned in the Income Tax Return

Shantilal Balubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.580/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shantilal Balubhai Parekh बिधम/ Ito, Ward 3(4) 24, Gaurav Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Nahur Village Road, Above Canara Bank, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund Murbad Road, Kalyan, West, Mumbai-400080. Maharashtra -421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpp9255C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 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 09.07.2021 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. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.83,282/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Radha Halbe Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Penalty Levied By Ao Is Bad In Law For Issuing Defective Notice Before Levying The Penalty. To Buttress This Contention, She Drew Our Attention To The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated

penalty. To buttress this contention, she drew our attention to the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Shantilal Balubhai Parekh 19.01.2015 which according to her is defective, since both the faults/charges ... down the correct proposition of law. 4. We note that the notice in the instant case was issued by AO u/s 274 r.w. Section 271(1) (c) of the Act dated 19.01.2015 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271

Ria Cetp Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ria Cetp Co-Operative बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Society Ltd 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Vs. Riacetp Co-Op. Ltd. Plot Opp. Khanda Colony, No.6, Bldg, Dhatav Midc New Panvel Roha C/O Adv. N. A. Kulkarni Wadal Building, 1St Floor, Near Dns Bank, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E)- 421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabar0138A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Against Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. We Note That The Despite Listing The Appeal Several Times & Even Though Notices Were Issued, None Appeared For The Assessee. The Impugned Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Which Was Levied By The Ao For Failure Of Assessee To Comply/Respond To The Notices Issued By Him U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Even Though, Non-Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee

saved by section 273B of the Income-tax Act,1961. I am satisfied that the appellant has committed default under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act,1961. without reasonable cause. Penalty of Rs.20,000/-, levied u/s. 271(1

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

this contention he drew our attention to the fact that the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP the Act dated 05.03.2016 is defective, since both the faults/charges i.e. have “concealment ... 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

Ashish Vaid, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)) In the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. amendment to section 271(1)(c) was held to be prospective by the Apex Court, as the statute categorically stated that it would apply w.e.f. 01.04.2003. On this ground, the Supreme ... However, subsequently while deciding the case of Raman Lal C. Hathi, the Apex Court once again examined the same amendment to section 271(1)(c), and came to the conclusion that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (supra) needed reconsideration

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 22,71,150/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has e-filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 23.09.2015 declaring ... case of M/s Madhav Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the penalty levied by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the same. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Apeals), Nationa Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalmorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Athena Building No.5, Sector-30, Mindspace, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aaeca3400B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil M. Lala Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi. [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed Towards Employee Stock Option Scheme (Esop) Under Section 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Amounting To Rs 1,84,75,816. In This Regard, The Learned Cit(A)/ Learned Assessing Officer Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred On The Following Grounds:

expenditure claimed towards ESOP cost. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the disallowance made in respect of expenditure claimed towards ESOP cost in the Final Assessment Order. Ground 3: Erroneously

Royal Rich Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Royal Rich Developers Dcit Cc- 4(4), Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, बनाम/ Building, Nariman Point, Mahavir General Store, 154, Vs. Mumbai. Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr2578J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2839/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cc- 4(4), Royal Rich Developers Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, बनाम/ C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mahavir General Store, Vs. 154, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

others Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), then also a mere defect in notice not striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. Thus on this ground alone, the penalty ... relevant words […] vitiate the penalty proceedings? 11.1 The Hon’ble Court after considering various judgment discussing the principle of law laid down on section 271(1)(c) and earlier judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (276 ITR 660) wherein

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchasing shares by way of its business policies. The Assessing Officer disallowed said expenditure under section 14A and simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal confirmed the order ... revenue's appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court: HELD A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchasing shares by way of its business policies. The Assessing Officer disallowed said expenditure under section 14A and simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal confirmed the order ... revenue's appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court: HELD A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

final assessment order was passed in October 2017. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against the appellant. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 02. At the time of hearing ... demand dated 21 December 2016 u/s 156 of the act and a penalty notice dated 21 December 2016 u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order thereby Aker Powergas P. Ltd; A.Y. 2013–14 not following the procedures laid down

Shobha Chidambara\M, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in partly upholding action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act 1961 amounting to RS. 28,476 and directing him to rework penalty on the basis of sustained addition ... facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, notice issued by the Assessing officer initiating penalty under section 274 read with section 271 (1) (c) was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not cancel the irrelevant portion in the notice as to whether the Assessee