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) ..

penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c). Our attention was drawn to the assessment order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) as well as the assessment order passed in reassessment

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)

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the assessment order dated 20-02-2014 passed by the AO u/s

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) | 29-08-2015). The findings recorded in the assessment proceedings in so far as "concealment of income" and "furnishing of incorrect 21 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad particulars" would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings

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 ()

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/- in HSBC the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/ the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/ Bank Account No. 019 Bank Account No. 019-860063-001. The assessee explained that 001. The assessee explained that

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 ()

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/- in HSBC the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/ the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs.2,60,61,006/ Bank Account No. 019 Bank Account No. 019-860063-001. The assessee explained that 001. The assessee explained that

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have validly been made in the hands of the assessee. 16. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the A.O had erred both in law and facts of the case in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have validly been made in the hands of the assessee. 16. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the A.O had erred both in law and facts of the case in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have validly been made in the hands of the assessee. 16. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the A.O had erred both in law and facts of the case in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have validly been made in the hands of the assessee. 16. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the A.O had erred both in law and facts of the case in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have validly been made in the hands of the assessee. 16. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the A.O had erred both in law and facts of the case in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands

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

reassessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set aside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case ordered by the Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the authorities (Para

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice M/s. Orbit Enterprises so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice M/s. Orbit Enterprises so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(c) and notice issued to them in their cases, which reads as under:- ".... The income of the assessee is enhanced consequential to the enhancement in the total income of the AOP. The main issue in this case was that income of AOP was : 8 : ITA Nos. 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008 & 3009/Mum/18 originally assessed as Income

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(CR)4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in plain printed form without ticking / marking the applicable clause as well as without striking-off the irrelevant limb. This conclusion draws all the more strength upon perusal of penalty order wherein penalty has finally been levied on both the limb which is evident from para-18 of the penalty

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(CR)4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in plain printed form without ticking / marking the applicable clause as well as without striking-off the irrelevant limb. This conclusion draws all the more strength upon perusal of penalty order wherein penalty has finally been levied on both the limb which is evident from para-18 of the penalty

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in plain printed form without ticking / marking the applicable clause as well as without striking-off the irrelevant limb. This conclusion draws all the more strength upon perusal of penalty order wherein penalty has finally been levied on both the limb which is evident from para-18 of the penalty

SHAH JAIN ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) on the facts of the present case. Admittedly, in the present case return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 was filed by the assessee on 31-03-2008 which was u/s 139 (4). The said return of income was also selected for scrutiny by issuance of and service of notice u/s