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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 10. To substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of notice u/s

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 10. To substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of notice u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 10. To substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of notice u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 10. To substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of notice u/s

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

10,26,320/- and Rs.4,21,55,018 in paras 5 and 6, respectively, of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 passed us. 143(3) road with Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

10,000/- was levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. 3.2 Against the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an Against the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an Against

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

10,000/- was levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. under section 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 29.07.2016. 3.2 Against the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an Against the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an Against

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court

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

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

10%\non administrative expenses and no basis for such estimation has\nbeen provided by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances,\naddition being merely on the estimate basis cannot be sustained in\nview of reasons pari materia with penalty cancelled u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section

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

10%\non administrative expenses and no basis for such estimation has\nbeen provided by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances,\naddition being merely on the estimate basis cannot be sustained in\nview of reasons pari materia with penalty cancelled u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section

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 appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

10%\non administrative expenses and no basis for such estimation has\nbeen provided by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances,\naddition being merely on the estimate basis cannot be sustained in\nview of reasons pari materia with penalty cancelled u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section

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