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)

271(1)(c) is exigible while in the instant case before us the I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 assessee has made a claim for deduction u/s 80IC for manufacturing done under its supervision and control at the industrial unit at Baddi, HP belonging to its sister concern Vaibhav and the said unit was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC. In the case

D B M GEOTECHNICS & CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

bogus purchase transactions disallowed 12.5% of the impugned purchases of Rs. 2,28,79,775/- and made a consequential addition of Rs. 28,59,972/- to the total income of the assessee. Subsequently, the A.O vide his penalty order passed 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

bogus, as no relevant services were rendered by such companies? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of addition made u/s 92C of the Act even though assessee furnished inaccurate particulars

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) was with regard to additions made to the income of the assessee in quantum on account of capital gains on sale of depreciable assets. The assessee has claimed to have sold factory premises at Nerul for a total consideration of Rs.1,16,00,000/- . The said factory premises was claimed

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with regard to alleged concealment of income by the assessee, whereas the imposition of the penalty is for ‘concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’, the levy of penalty is not sustainable. 12. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to delete the penalty for the assessment year

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty 12% which is on reduced profit percentage to 12.32% of unproven bogus purchases

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty 12% which is on reduced profit percentage to 12.32% of unproven bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ - is treated as assessee's u is treated as assessee's unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ amounting to Rs.2,41,77,979/ - is treated as assessee's u is treated as assessee's unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the expenditure u/s

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, it could be a case that concerns of Shri P.K.Agarwal might not have made purchases from concerns of Shri Kokate of the steels but from somewhere else and thereafter would have supplied to the assessee. It is also a fact that Shri P.K.Agarwal Reliance Industries Ltd 133A on 6.1.2005 and u/s

ITO 28(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SADHANA JAISINGH PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-28(3)(1), Sadhana Jaisingh Patel, Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, C/6/6/2/1, Neel Kamal, 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Sector – 3, Cbd Belapur, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aexpp4021M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 (1) (c) of the Act, holding as under:- “6.I have gone through the order levying penalty passed by the AO and the statement of facts. The AO had added Rs. 15,14,869/- being entire bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee. Subsequently, the A.O. passed the penalty order u/s

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus expense Penalty U/S 271(1) © rws 274 of the rws 274 of the Act, is initiate for concealment of Income concealment of Income.” 7.5 On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it had filed

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty