GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

INDU BISHT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

exemption limit and thus was not required to file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in levying penalty without providing enough opportunity of being heard to the assessee violating the principles of natural justice. 3 ITA No.644&645/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Indu Bisht 4. The assessee craves to add, alter

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 27/09/2016 levied penalty of Rs.14,72,240/-. Against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the assessee and upheld penalty levied u/s. 271

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 27/09/2016 levied penalty of Rs.14,72,240/-. Against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the assessee and upheld penalty levied u/s. 271

ANKITA SINGH,NALSAROVAR, ADODARA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ankita Singh, Ito, Ward 42(2)(1), 9, Bellevue Vierra, Adroda Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. Gaon, Bavla, Nalsarovar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block, Bkc Adroda B.O., Adroda, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ahmedabad-382220. Bandra East, Mumbai-450001. Pan No. Biaps 8725 F Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. wrongly initiated. 2. Briefly stated, facts

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the appellant failed to file return of income despite having total income exceeding the exemption

ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAM HASMUKHBHAI JAGDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

u/s A.Y. 2014-15 Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda 271(1)(C) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO levied the penalty to the tune of ₹ 6,42,880/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded i.e. ₹ 19,28,640/-. 04. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filling

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 (2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, no new facts or has been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assesse stands dismissed