SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

132 of the Act carried out in the case of the assessee in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 153 notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 18.12.2020 Act dated 18.12.2020 was issued to the assessee. In response issued to the assessee. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

132 of the Act carried out in the case of the assessee in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 153 notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 18.12.2020 Act dated 18.12.2020 was issued to the assessee. In response issued to the assessee. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

132 of the Act on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 ment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 ment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.78, determining total income at Rs.78,27,92,610/- under normal provisions

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

132 of the Act on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 ment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 ment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.78, determining total income at Rs.78,27,92,610/- under normal provisions

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, but being pari-materia,\nis applicable over the facts of this case also. However, we do not\nagree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the\nreason that penalty is levied on charge of undisclosed income\ndefined under the said section and rate of the penalty depends on\nthe other

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, but being pari-materia,\nis applicable over the facts of this case also. However, we do not\nagree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the\nreason that penalty is levied on charge of undisclosed income\ndefined under the said section and rate of the penalty depends on\nthe other

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

penalty order is passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of section 271AAB which is\ndirectly applicable in cases of search and seizure action u/s 132

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty