“Section 271(1)”

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Year 2015-16 whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 25.06.2018, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... vide order dated 26.12.2017 and, thereafter, in the above circumstances, penalty ITA. No. 35/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against the Appellant. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Appellant submitted that he was heavily dependent upon the chartered accountant handling

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

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

same has not found favour with the AO. 4.3.3. In order to appreciate the issue in proper perspective, the relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are reproduced here-in-below: “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. Section 271: (1 ... claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing

ITO 8 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sun Colorants Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

year 2009-10, whereby the CIT (A) had allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 22.03.2018, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA. No. 6469/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 “1. On the facts ... being 12.5% of bogus purchases of INR 28,08,000/-) was made to the returned income. 4. In the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of INR 1,08,459/- was levied vide order, dated 22.03.2018. The CIT(A), however, allowed the appeal filed

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) by the ld. Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction is bad in law and the consequential penalty order ITA. No.4973/Mum/2019 ... passed under section 271(1)(c) of the act is bad in law and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO action in imposing penalty of Rs.6

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Maharashtra State Electricity बिधम/ Acit, Circle-10(1) Distribution Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Prakashgad, 1St Floor, Anant Karve Road, Mumbai- Kanekar Marg, Station Road, 400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2933K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Ketan Ved Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1:1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271 (1) (C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Appellant.

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

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 22(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleharmeet Singh Sablok V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Alrps3621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Department By Smt Bharati Singh

stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its 4 Harmeet Singh Sablok income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Against this order ... Rs.1,50,000 against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) along with the Explanation 1(B) of the Act on the plea that he had concealed the particulars of his income. A show-cause

Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am Shri Manish Manila Gosar Huf Ito-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent By : Ms. Usha Shrote Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF ITO

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 6. The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

penalty. The said notice is at page -8 of the paper book. A perusal of the notice reveals that both charges of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned in the said notice, the irrelevant charge is not struck of in the said notice. Second notice u/s. 271 ... r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31/07/2015. In the second notice as well both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income are mentioned. 6. In the instant case

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1313/Mum/2021 (A.Y

Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Amarjit Nagi, Deputy Commissioner Of B-602, Foreshore Juhu Tara Road, Income Tax-Cc-3(2), Santacruz West, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400049. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abtpn 3900 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2022

facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs.1,29,780/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a letter wherein it is submitted

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

respectively, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT

S.S. Metal &Alloys, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Thane

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

respectively, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT

Mr. Faiyaz Mohamedali Mithani, Mumbau vs. ITO WD. 17(1) (4)New WD. 17(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1784/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Mr. Faiyaz Mohammedali Mithani Vs I.T.O., Ward 17(1)(4) (New Ward Flat No.602, 6Th Floor, Shivam Co-Op. 17(1)(1) As Per Portal, Kautilya Bhavan, Hsg Soc. Ltd, Near Versova Metro Bandra (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Station, Seven Bungalows, J.P. Road Mumbai-400 051 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan : Aptm0643M Appellant Respondent

against the order dated 11/08/2021 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. Not condoned