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 ()

10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. rate particulars of the income. 4.3 Further, the Assessing

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 ()

10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. rate particulars of the income. 4.3 Further, the Assessing

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 ()

10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. rate particulars of the income. 4.3 Further, the Assessing

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 ()

10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. rate particulars of the income. 4.3 Further, the Assessing

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count

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

u/s 271 (J)(c) of the Act is bad in law. 5 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED: 9. As per provisions of section 271 (J)(c) of the Income tax Act, for a just levy of penalty, there are some primary requirements that need to be fulfilled. Relevant provisions of the Act are as under: 10

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 has to be held as void-ab-initio. I, therefore, overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the penalty. The additional grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.07.2022, passed by the CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR 2,85,23,354/- under Section 271

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

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

10] Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed..." case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Gruh Finance Ltd. [2018] 100 taxmann.com 103 (Guj.), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat upheld the order of the ITAT deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer on disallowance u/s

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

10-11 inference as to non-application of mind, thus vitiating imposition of penalty. 21.1. Therefore, the question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the show-cause notice which is in printed format, thereby not indicating therein as under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

10-11 inference as to non-application of mind, thus vitiating imposition of penalty. 21.1. Therefore, the question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the show-cause notice which is in printed format, thereby not indicating therein as under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed

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

10 (i). Further, with reference to need for specifying with reference to need for specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay

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

10 (i). Further, with reference to need for specifying with reference to need for specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

u/s 115JB, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to sustain the order of the Tribunal, though on different grounds. Therefore, while the reasoning and approach of the Tribunal is not tenable, for the reasons disclosed above

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

10% on estimate basis which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The AO levied penalty on the disallowance. CIT(A) confirmed it. On appeal, the Third Member observed as follows: Tisya Jewels 13 "It is a trite law that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on an estimated income/additions... What follows from the above discussion

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

10% on estimate basis which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The AO levied penalty on the disallowance. CIT(A) confirmed it. On appeal, the Third Member observed as follows: Tisya Jewels 13 "It is a trite law that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on an estimated income/additions... What follows from the above discussion

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

10]\nTherefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to\nbe dismissed...\" case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 ν.\nGruh Finance Ltd. [2018] 100 taxmann.com 103 (Guj.), the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Gujarat upheld the order of the ITAT deleting penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer on disallowance_u/s