“Section 271(1)”

ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

account of bogus unsecured loan and disallowance of interest expenditure stand deleted. 6.5 6.6 The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The basis for such initiation is the additions made under Section

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Alternatively the Appellant prays that it be appropriately granted relief in assessment year 2010-11. Ground 4 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under ... Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the matter. Ground 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in charging interest

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Alternatively the Appellant prays that it be appropriately granted relief in assessment year 2010-11. Ground 4 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under ... Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the matter. Ground 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in charging interest

Chandan Dhingadmal Jain, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the separate penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeals ... against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 ITAs No.8073 & 8074/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12) 3. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, and during

Chandan Dhingadmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

disallowance to 5% of the bogus purchases and thus granted partial relief to the assessee. 4. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the AO for the years under consideration. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO vide ... order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied a penalty being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee for the year under consideration. The learned Addl./Joint CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld

Oopal Diamond, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailoopal Diamond Suite No.2, B Wing, Laxmi Diamond, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaafo1064A V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 19(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset ... referring to the impugned order, submitted that the learned CIT(A), while dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, has considered incorrect facts, which do not pertain to the year under consideration. In this regard, our attention was drawn