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

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

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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

1) of the Act on 28.11.2014\ndeclaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/-. The return of income\nwas selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') was completed on\n28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.2,12,77,280/-.\nSubsequently, in view of search and seizure action u/s 132

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

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

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