ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 30,65,075/-. 17. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 03.12.2024, upheld the penalty levied by the ld. AO. 18. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order

CHOUDHARY CONSTRUCTION CO.,GOREGAON -W vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 31(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, once the AO was not sure regarding which limb of penalty provision he intends to press into, therefore his action of levy of penalty is against the provisions of law. It was submitted that the penalty in the present case had been levied without issuing of mandatory notice and on both the limb

LORDS INN HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI WEST vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), NARIMAN POINT

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Mr. Pushpendra Bansal on 05/09/2019. Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Appellant on 28/06/2021. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the travel expenses at INR 3,01,601/- were debited in the books of account of the Appellant. During

ALLIED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MALAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30 (1) (1), BANDRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

Section 271(1)(c) are quasi-criminal in nature, and in the absence of any material to establish contumacious conduct, deliberate falsity, or intention to mislead the tax authorities, the confirmation of penalty is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. That the CIT(A) has failed to consider the settled legal position that penalty cannot be sustained

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

TIRUPATI REDDY MUKKU,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(3), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) without properly recording the reasons to levy penalty in the assessment order and there is no clear-cut finding and crystallized charge being conveyed by the learned officer and hence liable to be struck down.” The facts in brief are that the Appellant, proprietor of M/s Tirumala 3. Construction engaged in the work of civil constructions

PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as made before the AO.However,the ld.CIT(A) endorsed the findings and made

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

INNOVATORS FACADE SYSTEMS LIMITED,MIRA ROAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2, THANE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed to be levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O in levying penalty of Rs. 4,48,381/-on the ground that the appellant

SANJAY KUMAR,UAE vs. INT TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUM, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Omkareshwar Chidarasanjay Kumar, C/O Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Spcaes, Off Jvlr Road, Behind Majas Depot Jogeshwari East Maharashtra ……………. Appellant Pan: Aazps9534Q V/S Income Tax Officer (It)– 4(2)(1), Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400021 Maharashtra

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act be struck down.” 3. The brief facts of the case are : (a) The appellant filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.5,65,84,870/- During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the appellant submitted a revised computation offering dividend income of Rs.6,14,521/-, a foreign dividend income from Johnson & Johnson

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 2 6 , MUMBAI vs. MANMOHAN DAULAL RATHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\"] dated 09.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2010-11.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed\nhis return of income on 25.09.2010 for the year under consideration by\ndeclaring total income of Rs.91,52,500/-. The AO received

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-4(4), 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400063. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-12(2)(1), Now Dy. 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Cit Central Circle-4(4), Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400063. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent

133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under law 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. estimating estimating the on-money received