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)

section. Our above say is also supported by the following judicial decisions on the issue: - (i) CIT -vs- Kiran & Co. 217 ITR 326 (Bombay) (1996) 6 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad The assessee had made an conditional offer of an amount to taxation subject to non- levy of penalty u/s 271

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

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Penalty U/s. 271(1) (c) cannot be levied and assessee pleads that there is neither "Concealment' nor 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' by him. The assessee also relies on following decisions of various High Courts to put weight that he has not concealed the Income. Judicial Pronouncements: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh

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

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) while levying penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 therefore this contention of the appellant is rejected. 1.15 The appellant further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sureshchandra Mittal 251 ITR 9, affirmed the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya

ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) while levying penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 therefore this contention of the appellant is rejected. 1.15 The appellant further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sureshchandra Mittal 251 ITR 9, affirmed the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) while levying penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 therefore this contention of the appellant is rejected. 1.15 The appellant further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sureshchandra Mittal 251 ITR 9, affirmed the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain penalty. In CIT v. Atual Mohan Bindal [2009] 183 Taxman 444 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at para

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

JM FINANCIAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J M SHARE & STOCK BROKERS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 24.3.2014. 4.7.1. We find that the decision rendered hereinabove for the Asst Year 1998-99 on this technical issue of not striking off the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice would hold good for this asst year also except with variance in figures. Hence we have no hesitation in cancelling the levy

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- “3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HOME DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- “3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA LAND DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- “3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA FINSTOCK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- “3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA FINSTOCK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- “3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty