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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed in the following decisions - • CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC). ITA No 380 of 2015 • CIT vs Samson Perinchery (SLP)(392 ITR 4) (BOM) • CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar) p) The final penalty is imposed by invoking Explanation 1 for furnishing inaccurate particulars

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

27 flats constructed by the assessee in Project Carmel at Kamothe in three years by following decision of ITAT, Mumbai dated 18.05.2016. Thus,in any case this issue is not before us in the appeal filed by the assessee of which we are presently seized of. 4.6 The next issue on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

Section 80IC clearly requires manufacturing . Thus, learned CIT DR strongly supported the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act and contended that the appellate order of learned CIT(A) is erroneous which needed to be reversed and penalty levied by the AO be confirmed. 10. The assessee during the course of hearing was directed

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)

27-02-2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 2976/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 05-02-2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2011-12, the appellate proceedings before

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) ..

27,524/- before obtaining any recorded reasons from the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment. Further there was no mala fide intention of claiming the said Long Term Capital loss and setting off said loss against any long term capital gain. This is not a case where any particulars of income or portion of income were concealed. The assessee

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

10 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta difference is noticed by the AO. between reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

27,660/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT-(A) has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

27,660/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT-(A) has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

27,660/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT-(A) has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

27,660/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT-(A) has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation

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

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)

10 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 9,37,365/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) not appreciating that the penalty was levied for the reason that

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

27,63,567 was much lower than the returned Reliance Industries Ltd 30.03.2018 and hence, there is no question of concealment of income and consequent levy of penalty. Penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation on steel which was purchased and capitalised in earlier year 5. erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned AO with respect to disallowance

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

27(1)(c) in a standard proforma without indicating any specific reason/charge against the Appellant for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 2 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: • It is incumbent upon the AO to indicate the precise charge for levy of penalty before initiating