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

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

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

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Procter & Gamble Heath Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(2)(1), P& G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Chakala Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Sir M.K. Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 2616 F Appellant Respondent

Disallowance u/s 14A: Penalty u/s 271( (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A: Penalty u/s 271(1)© is not leviable on this 1)© is not leviable

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act might not be levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The assessee contested that there was no concealment of the income or assessee contested that there was no concealment

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act might not be levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The levied in respect of addition sustained by the ITAT. The assessee contested that there was no concealment of the income or assessee contested that there was no concealment

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

disallowance at the rate of 4 percentile of ‘salary and wages'\nexpenses and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate\nbasis and initiated penalty u/s 271

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

disallowance at the rate of 4 percentile of ‘salary and wages'\nexpenses and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate\nbasis and initiated penalty u/s 271

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed and further, claim regarding depreciation was restricted to ₹.14,71,20,377/- as against ₹.19,96,45,361/- claimed by the assessee. 3. With regard to the above said adjustments, Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

disallowance at the rate of 4 percentile of ‘salary and wages'\nexpenses and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate\nbasis and initiated penalty u/s 271

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

disallowance of purchases on adhoc basis does not tantamount to willful furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s

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

disallowance of purchases on adhoc basis does not tantamount to willful furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, it was again submitted that though the assessee didn‟t appeal against the addition u/s. 40A(3) of Rs.48,784/- given the quantum involved, at the same time, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s 271

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on ad hoc disallowance. Since facts were similar, the penalty

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of excess depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 4,20,640/- 5. Additional income in the return filed u/s 153A Rs.1,07,84,250/- Rs.2,57,98,917/- made by the Ld. AO. Finally, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued and the penalty

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance of excess depreciation In ROI filed u/s 153A Rs. 4,20,640/- 5. Additional income in the return filed u/s 153A Rs.1,07,84,250/- Rs.2,57,98,917/- made by the Ld. AO. Finally, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued and the penalty