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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various\nadditions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\nAfter receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer\nissued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty might\nnot

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

46,527/-\nPage 3\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\nxiv. by simply relying on the finding in the assessment order without in any manner applying his mind as to whether in the assessment order could be construed to represent any concealment of income,\nxv. without

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

46,527/-\nPage 4\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\n(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.46,527/- being

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

46,527/-\nPage 4\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\n(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.46,527/- being

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

46,527/-\nCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNG\nPage 4\nITA No. 435 to 439/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 & 16-17\nMohan Thakurdas Gurnani\n(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.46,527/- being

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses, as is held

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is, therefore, being disposed off as being premature nature. 41. Ground No. 8 The Learned CIT(A) erred in his interpretation of the Act, the Insurance Act 1938, the IRDAI Act (Preparation of Financial Statements and Auditor‘s Report of Insurance Companies) Regulations 2002, and the IRDAI (Assets, Liabilities

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

46,225/- and disallowance of deduction u/s.10B amounting to Rs.8,31,70,675/-. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in assesse’s case (supra) had deleted the penalty in respect of transfer pricing adjustment. However, the matter was remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) on the issue of levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

46,765/- on account of preoperative expenditure and deduction u/s 35D of the Act, respectively. The Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice dated 28.03.2016 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

LYKA LABS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the show cause notice was invalid. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional high court in case of Mohd Farhan Shaikh and Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

46,994/- from hawala party M/s. Manibhadra to inflate the expenses and thereby suppress true profit and this act of the assessee itself established deliberate failure to furnish accurate particulars of the income, which attracts for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income?" 5. Ground No. 1 to 6 pertains to deletion

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

46,300 Time barring and validity of the order of the TPO and the AO 2. erred in holding that the order of the assessment order dated 30 November 2018 was not time barred in terms of the provisions of section 153 of the Act, 3. erred in holding that the order of the transfer pricing order under section 92CA

ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAM HASMUKHBHAI JAGDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

46,730/- by making addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s A.Y. 2014-15 Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda 271(1)(C) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO levied the penalty to the tune of ₹ 6,42,880/- being 100% of the tax sought