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

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. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

u/s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act. It would be useful to reproduce the contents of the said notice as under:\n\"NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX АСТ, 1961,\nPAN: AAACT2152P\nOffice of the\nAsst. Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle 40, Room no 653\nAayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor\nM.K. Road, Mumbai

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), ie, whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 6.5 Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (HC), a Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

124 taxmann.com 249\nCommissioner of Income-tax (LTU) v. State Bank of India[2024]\n169taxmann.com 305, Commissioner of Income-tax v. SSA's\nEmerald Meadows[2016] 73taxmann.com 248, and Commissioner\nof Income-tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 119Taxman 433.\n10. The learned CIT(A) reproducing Explanation 1 to section\n271(1)(c) in extensor proceeded to examine the applicability

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

SCHINDLER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment made by the TPO. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that in so far as merits of the TP adjustment are concerned, they have been upheld by the Tribunal in ITA NO.7470/Mum/2011 vide order dated 03/04/2023. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee raised

SCHINDLER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment made by the TPO. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that in so far as merits of the TP adjustment are concerned, they have been upheld by the Tribunal in ITA NO.7470/Mum/2011 vide order dated 03/04/2023. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee raised

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls.274 read\nwith Section 271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned\norder, the penalty has been levied by the AO for concealment of income.\n6.2 Before me, the AR of the appellant

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls.274 read\nwith Section 271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned\norder, the penalty has been levied by the AO for concealment of income.\n6.2 Before me, the AR of the appellant

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

124-A, Gokul Arcade, Maharishi Karve Road, Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vile Parle (East), PAN: AACFP3044K Mumbai – 400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain, A.R. & Shri Satish Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R. Date of Hearing : 08 . 11 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19 . 12 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act would be applicable only where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. However, the estimation of higher rate of profits by the AO cannot be termed as either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No. 1661 & 1660/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas