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

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

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(38) of the Act for long te was added to the returned income. The addition made was accepted was added to the returned income. The addition made was was added to the returned income. The addition made was by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further appeal was filed

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(38) of the Act for long te was added to the returned income. The addition made was accepted was added to the returned income. The addition made was was added to the returned income. The addition made was by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further appeal was filed

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

section 143(1)\nof the Income Tax Act 1961, (‘the Act' in short) on 5.6.2012.\n2.\nThe only issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether\nassessee is entitled to the exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act with\nrespect to long term capital gains. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO in\nshort) received information from

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

38 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held that where deemed income assessed under section 115JB becomes basis of assessment as it was higher than income determined under normal provision, concealment made under normal provision having no effect, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.\nThe relevant paras of the decision

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

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 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate\nbasis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of the income.\n4.3 Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that assessee\nused 'shell entities' for rotation of funds/circuitous transactions.\nThe Assessing Officer identified expenses related to the shell entities\nincluding interest amounting to Rs.33

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 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate\nbasis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of the income.\n4.3 Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that assessee\nused 'shell entities' for rotation of funds/circuitous transactions.\nThe Assessing Officer identified expenses related to the shell entities\nincluding interest amounting to Rs.33

M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) on estimated addition is bad-in-law.” When the appeal was taken for hearing none present on behalf of the 3. Appellant. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, we find that the solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the\nmatter.\nGround 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act\n5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

38,68,610 ii) Guarantee Commission Rs.6,16,23,121 iii) Fee Income Rs.21,03,80,849 iv) Future Interest flows Rs.91,32,27,037 Rs.564,90,99,618 7. It is also not in dispute that the assessee offered an amount of Rs.4,40,19,95,794/- as expenses worked out on the basis of modified gross profit margin

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

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

38,600/- and partly confirmed the addition on account of undisclosed notional income from house property . Even though the second appeal of the assessee against the assessment P a g e | 8 ITA No. 246, 247 & 248/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Raju Mohan Gurnani order was pending, Ld. AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271