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 ()

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 ()

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

addition of Rs.6,72,00,364/- and added the same in the income of the Assessee. 6. The AO simultaneously in the Assessment order, also recorded the satisfaction that the Assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation (1) thereto which is applicable for concealment of particulars of income, whereas, while concluding penalty proceedings, he had levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On merits, the assessee has submitted that it has neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income, but the additions

MUNIR M. KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. AO was incorrect in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c), in respect of additions

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

addition. The TTO imposed penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The apex court stated that assessee had 7 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad admitted that the amounts surrendered were his Income

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of additions made towards unaccounted income from money lending business, additions on account of unaccounted stock of jewellery and also additions on account of enhancements of income made by the Ld. CIT(A) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of additions made towards unaccounted income from money lending business, additions on account of unaccounted stock of jewellery and also additions on account of enhancements of income made by the Ld. CIT(A) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of additions made towards unaccounted income from money lending business, additions on account of unaccounted stock of jewellery and also additions on account of enhancements of income made by the Ld. CIT(A) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

income u/s 41(1) of the 1961 Act led to the levying of the penalty by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act vide penalty order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, with respect to additions

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

income filed by the assessee is accepted by department without any additions. 2. In this context, it is to be stated that penalty u/s 271

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

income filed with Revenue in pursuance to notice issued u/s 153A of the 1961 Act, wherein the A.O levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IC was disallowed by the A.O in quantum assessment . It was submitted that the assessee did not filed any appeal against quantum additions

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

income of `13,750/- from `50,000/- per day as taken by the AO. The CIT(A) thus effectively reduced the addition to `50,18,750/- against which when the matter reached before the Tribunal the Tribunal further reduced the addition. 5. The assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271