NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

133 CTR (SC) 143, the assessee cannot get any advantage or benefit of revised return filed by him in relation to imposition of penalty for concealment in the original return filed under s. 139(4). This was also held by Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Jaiswal vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 651. In view of the foregoing

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

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

133 to the Assessee and recorded her statement wherein vide question No.4 asked as under: Q.4. During the assessment year under consideration, you have claimed a deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.6,72,00,364/. Please produce the documentary evidences for the eligible claim of Rs.6,72,00,364/-. 4.1 The Assessee, in reply

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

133 ITR7. we held on similar facts that the Commissioner could not pass an order on similar facts that the Commissioner could not pass an order on similar facts that the Commissioner could not pass an order pertaining to penalty under section263 of the Act. We held that pertaining to penalty under section263 of the Act. We held that pertaining

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)

133(6) of the Act and the notices were returned unserved. Accordingly assessing officer treated the above bogus purchases as income of the assessee. 4. Subsequently penalty proceedings were initiated by issue of notice under section 274 of the Act on 04.03.2014 and served on the assessee. In response assessee filed a letter dated 01.07.2014, for the sake of convenience

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

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:

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 J. Deora

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, by applying the decisions referred to by the appellant, I find that the assessing officer deviated from the original charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty levied is cancelled. The appellant also argued that no penalty can be levied because the appellant was unable to produce the parties

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, by applying the decisions referred to by the appellant, I find that the assessing officer deviated from the original charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty levied is cancelled. The appellant also argued that no penalty can be levied because the appellant was unable to produce the parties

SHORELINE HOTEL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

133(6) on the four parties to test check the genuineness of the transactions. But the notices were returned by the postal authorities with remark ‘not known’. The assessee has submitted further details and information of the transactions but the A.O was not satisfied with the information and has observed Shoreline Hotel Ltd, Mumbai. that the assessee has failed

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

133 (Bombay) held that where the Assessing Officer levied penalty holding that assessee claimed deductions in respect of borrowed funds, which were diverted to sister concern and not for business and assessee bona fide pleaded that its deduction was covered by a particular provision of law, penalty could not be levied. 6.2.40. In CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice." 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions