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

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

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

133(6) of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that of the Act appeared before the AO and confirmed that they have given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee on ave given interest bearing loans to the assessee

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

6 sought to be evaded 7 Maximum penalty 300% being tax sought Rs. 3,40,06,935/- to be evaded 38.Accordingly, the assessee is liable for minimum penalty of 100% Le. Rs. 1,13,35,645/- or a maximum penalty of 300% i.e. Rs. 3,40,06,935/- u/s. 271(1)(c) being the amount of tax that would have

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

6 sought to be evaded 7 Maximum penalty 300% being tax sought Rs. 3,40,06,935/- to be evaded 38.Accordingly, the assessee is liable for minimum penalty of 100% Le. Rs. 1,13,35,645/- or a maximum penalty of 300% i.e. Rs. 3,40,06,935/- u/s. 271(1)(c) being the amount of tax that would have

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

6 sought to be evaded 7 Maximum penalty 300% being tax sought Rs. 3,40,06,935/- to be evaded 38.Accordingly, the assessee is liable for minimum penalty of 100% Le. Rs. 1,13,35,645/- or a maximum penalty of 300% i.e. Rs. 3,40,06,935/- u/s. 271(1)(c) being the amount of tax that would have

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

6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes of law, the assessee preferred\nthe present appeals before us.\n9.\nAt the outset

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

6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes of law, the assessee preferred\nthe present appeals before us.\n9.\nAt the outset

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

6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes of law, the assessee preferred\nthe present appeals before us.\n9.\nAt the outset

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

6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes of law, the assessee preferred\nthe present appeals before us.\n9.\nAt the outset

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the\nmatter.\nGround 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act\n5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271-276 the current status  Photograph of Godown of United 277 Steel Traders  Ledger copy for the year 278-306 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022.  12 sample purchase related 307-431 document i.e. invoice, e-way bill, raw material receipt, lorry receipt, weight slip. photograph of truck and truck driver, driving license, RC status, bank statement of assessee, extract from MS Scrap