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 ()

disallowance made by the assessee don’t attract penalty u/s attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

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 ()

disallowance made by the assessee don’t attract penalty u/s attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed i.e. whether for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income would go to the root of the lis. Therefore, it would be a jurisdictional issue. Being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised before the High Court for the first time

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed i.e. whether for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income would go to the root of the lis. Therefore, it would be a jurisdictional issue. Being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised before the High Court for the first time

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

disallowance on 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

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

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance of deduction under Section 10B of the Act during the penalty proceedings. The Penalty Order also meets the test laid down by the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court since the case before us is not one in which penalty proceedings were taken up on one limb of Section 271(1

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise only when the assessee has wilfully and consciously attempted to prevent demonstrating the correct position. The ld. AR argued that making a claim which is held to be not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that making of additions / disallowance

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise only when the assessee has wilfully and consciously attempted to prevent demonstrating the correct position. The ld. AR argued that making a claim which is held to be not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that making of additions / disallowance

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise only when the assessee has wilfully and consciously attempted to prevent demonstrating the correct position. The ld. AR argued that making a claim which is held to be not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that making of additions / disallowance

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise only when the assessee has wilfully and consciously attempted to prevent demonstrating the correct position. The ld. AR argued that making a claim which is held to be not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that making of additions / disallowance

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise only when the assessee has wilfully and consciously attempted to prevent demonstrating the correct position. The ld. AR argued that making a claim which is held to be not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that making of additions / disallowance

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance against the weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act by the Appellant. 7.2 In disregarding the various other binding judgements of the ITAT and Hon'ble High Court which squarely applies to the Appellant's case with regard to allowability of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) which are in relation to expenses incurred by DSIR

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

disallowed said expenditure under section 14A and simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) is leviable on adhoc disallowance and deleted the penalty. In the Appellant's case, the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) is leviable on adhoc disallowance and deleted the penalty. In the Appellant's case, the disallowance

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 271(1)(c) and 271 AAB would be applicable\npost amendment.\n\"271.Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of\nincome, etc.\n(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the\nCommissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is\nsatisfied that any person-\n(c) has concealed the particulars of his income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 271(1)(c) and 271 AAB would be applicable\npost amendment.\n\"271.Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of\nincome, etc.\n(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the\nCommissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is\nsatisfied that any person-\n(c) has concealed the particulars of his income