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

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.\nThe AO levied penalty Rs.47,74,794/- in respect of the disallowance of\nRs.38,30,978/-on account of Foreign Exchange Loss and in respect of\nthe addition of Rs.1,72,92,564/- on account of alleged undervaluation of\nstock.It is noticed that penalty was levied on account of certain\ndisallowances made

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. 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 ()

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

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section 2 of section\n270 of the Act as in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer\nhas made disallowance

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section 2 of section\n270 of the Act as in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer\nhas made disallowance

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

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

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

disallowed a sum of Rs. 6,72,00,364/- on account of violation of section 54Fvide order dated 23.12.2016. 7. The Assessee is now in receipt of notice u/s. 271 (J)(c) of the Act asking to show cause as to why penalty u/s. 271 (J)(c) of the Act should not be levied. 8. In this regard we would

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. 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

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. 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

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