M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act he has to\nrespond.\n6.1 The coordinate ITAT,Mumbai bench in the case of ITA\nNo962/Mum/2024 Triumph Securities Ltd has in an exhaustive\norder involving similar issue has taken the same view of the matter\nquashing the penalty order.Relevant parts are extracted as under:\n\"5. The Ld.AR invited our attention to the notice

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act he has to\nrespond.\n6.1 The coordinate ITAT,Mumbai bench in the case of ITA No.\n962/Mum/2024 Triumph Securities Ltd has in an exhaustive\norder involving similar issue has taken the same view of the matter\nquashing the penalty order. Relevant parts are extracted as under:\n\"5. The Ld.AR invited our attention

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/-, it was submitted that said\nincome was offered in the return of income to avoid litigation on the\nmatter though the expenses disallowed were genuine expenses and\nhad been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per\nExplanation 5A of section 271(1)(c

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/-, it was submitted that said\nincome was offered in the return of income to avoid litigation on the\nmatter though the expenses disallowed were genuine expenses and\nhad been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per\nExplanation 5A of section 271(1)(c

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) and penalty has to be levied”. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Ltd. case (supra) has also considered a question/case, wherein the Assessee had claimed expenditure, which was not acceptable to the Revenue and therefore the same was not accepted and then the question arose whether

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

section 271(1)(c) in the\nassessment order, which was duly served on the assessee making it aware of the\ncharges of penalty.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the charge was not\nspecified

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c).\n[Para 9.1]\nIn view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' \nThus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of KC Builders (supra), the penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is\ndeleted.\n7.3.3.7 The levy

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). [Para 18]..." Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. (supra), Krishnan Thyagarajan Sivarama(supra) and Granite Gate Properties (P) Ltd. vs, PCIT(supra) the appellant did not get any benefit or gain by claiming depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

depreciation on steel purchase. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) on the issue was rightly initiated.\nThe AO referred to the provisions of section 271

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 9. The sum and substance of assessee's case is that assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnished any incorrect particulars of such income. Admittedly, assessee had shown correct sale consideration of the property and also shown correct cause of depreciation

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case of appellant company, the returned income as well as assessed income are in negative, therefore, the ratio of this judgment is duly applicable to the facts of the present appellant. Considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents as discussed above, it is held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271(1)(c) of the Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. Income-tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that nature of receipts received on account of Brand, Trade Mark, Marketing know-how is no more debatable äfter the amendment in section 55(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 w.e.f.01-04-2002."?" 4. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT

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:

depreciation of Rs. 8,57,83,800/- has assessed the total income of Rs.Nil and passed the order u/sec143(3) of the Act dated 22- 12-2006. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The appellate authority has confirmed the addition of waiver of Loan and M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. granted relief

SHORELINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle- 1(2), 29 Dar-Ul.Habib, Marine Drive, Old Cgo Building, 9Th Floor, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,31,417/-. Thus, the total disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) was to the tune of Rs. 21,30,322/-. Based on the disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the AO initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that specifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. ITA. Nos.3718, 3720 & 3721/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13, 2011-12 & 2010-11 17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income