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

section 271(1)(c).\n[Para 9.1]\nIn view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' \nThus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of KC Builders (supra), the penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is\ndeleted.\n7.3.3.7 The levy

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), i.e.,\nwhether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars\nof income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met\nspecifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on\nthe basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.\nAssessee also referred

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met specifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on the basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Assessee also referred

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met specifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on the basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Assessee also referred

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met specifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on the basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Assessee also referred

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), i.e.,\nwhether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars\nof income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met\nspecifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on\nthe basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.\nAssessee also referred

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), i.e.,\nwhether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars\nof income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met\nspecifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on\nthe basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.\nAssessee also referred

RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), i.e.,\nwhether it is concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars\nof income, so the assessee should know the grounds which need to be met\nspecifically, otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended and on\nthe basis of such a vague notice, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.\nAssessee also referred

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 68 section 68 of the Act and some unexplained expenditure under d some unexplained expenditure under section d some unexplained expenditure under 69C of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/- of the Act and also disallowed interest of Rs.5,73,193/ , paid on unsecured

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NEVALES NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

u/s. 28-03-2016 issued by the AO and has returned a finding that the notice so issued to the assessee doesn‟t specify as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings have been initiated, whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 148 and original return as concealed income when no additional income was offered but just claim of an expense was withdrawn voluntarily before any confrontation by AO ITA Nos. 274 & 275/Mum/2024 Dinesh Sunderji Shah, A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2018-19 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or modify any ground of appeal before or at any time of hearing

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 148 and original return as concealed income when no additional income was offered but just claim of an expense was withdrawn voluntarily before any confrontation by AO ITA Nos. 274 & 275/Mum/2024 Dinesh Sunderji Shah, A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2018-19 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or modify any ground of appeal before or at any time of hearing