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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty Penalty levied on disallowance

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

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) ..

disallowed the expenditure and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The assessee explained that the omission to make a disallowance

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s. 271(1)(c) as regards the disallowance of the assesse‟s claim of “writing off” of the advances given to its staff members, which was claimed by the assessee as a revenue expenditure. In our considered view, a mere disallowance of the aforesaid claim of the assessee on a standalone basis cannot justify imposition of penalty

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable, however, he by considering and observing as under: “That in the case pertaining to AY. 2013-14 also the Assessee has claimed an incorrect claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act of long term capital gain, which was disallowed

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

disallowance confirmed during the appellate\nstage and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable as per I.T. Act,\n1961

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an tax-payer in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1) , such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty

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 ()

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income inaccurate particulars of the income in relation to said in relation to said suo-motu 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 ()

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income inaccurate particulars of the income in relation to said in relation to said suo-motu 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 ()

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income inaccurate particulars of the income in relation to said in relation to said suo-motu disallowance

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 ()

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income inaccurate particulars of the income in relation to said in relation to said suo-motu disallowance

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,61,316 u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source on the basis of revised statement of total income filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Thereafter, AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271