SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. Now it is for the Revenue to rebut the same with cogent incriminating material that explanation offered by the assessee in penalty provisions are false. The Revenue did not bring any incriminating material to prove that the said liability ceased to exist and the assessee had obtained any benefit as is contemplated

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

penalty of Rs. 81,387/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

penalty of Rs. 81,387/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). [Para 9.1] In view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K C Builders (supra), the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is deleted. 7.3.3.7 The levy of penalty

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

u/s 131(3) by an order dated 23.03.1971. On 24.05.1971, the assessee-firm filed a revised return showing an income of Rs.1,40,664/-. On the basis of the revised return, assessment was completed and penalty imposed by invoking Explanation to section 271

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

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

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132(4) of I. r. Act. Therefore, the primary condition that the surrender of income u/s. 132(4) must be during the search and seizure operation is not fulfilled. Therefore, question of allowing Immunity as per Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) does

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

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132(4) of I. r. Act. Therefore, the primary condition that the surrender of income u/s. 132(4) must be during the search and seizure operation is not fulfilled. Therefore, question of allowing Immunity as per Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) does

ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132(4) of I. r. Act. Therefore, the primary condition that the surrender of income u/s. 132(4) must be during the search and seizure operation is not fulfilled. Therefore, question of allowing Immunity as per Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) does

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. 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

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

SANJIV KRISHNAKANT ASHTAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay: 2009-10. I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017

271 94 2005-06 144 221 4 | P a g e I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 2004-05 — 365 TOTAL 613 847 As per this chart in four years preceding F.Y. 2008-09, the assessee was in India for 847 days. Therefore, the assessee was resident in India as per provision of section 6(1)(c). Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court

PUSHPA JHAMU SUGHAND ( LATE SHRI JHAMU SUGHAND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5730/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2000-01) बिाम/ Late Sh. Jhamu Sughand Asst. Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Smt. Income Tax- Central V. Pushpa Jhamu Sughand, Circle- 13 17/6 Rama Krishna Chs Mumbai. Ltd., Juhu Mumbai - 400049 स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aajps0695L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271(1)(c) unless Revenue brings on record cogent and positive material to show that the whole transaction for purchase and sale of flat was a bogus , sham and colorable device to defraud revenue and evade taxes. . Hence we order deletion of penalty levied on this ground w.r.t. loss on sale of flats as levied u/s 271