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 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 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 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

139(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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In connection to that, under the instructions of our above mentioned Assessee and on his behalf, we state and submit as follows: 1. Before dealing with the grounds on which the present proceedings were initiated we would like to state the relevant facts, in brief, for a better understanding

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271(AAB) as against 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the date of search in\nthis case is 04.02.2016 and section 271(AAB) is applicable in the present case.\n11.1 From the plain reading of section 271AAB, it is clear that where a search\nu/s.132(1) was initiated on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, penalty

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

271(1)(c) of the Act reads as under: [Explanation 3. - Where any person 28[***] fails, without reasonable cause to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271(AAB) as against 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the date of search in\nthis case is 04.02.2016 and section 271(AAB) is applicable in the present case.\n11.1 From the plain reading of section 271AAB, it is clear that where a search\nu/s.132(1) was initiated on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, penalty

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271(AAB) as against 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the date of search in this case is 04.02.2016 and section 271(AAB) is applicable in the present case.\n11.1 From the plain reading of section 271AAB, it is clear that where a search u/s.132(1) was initiated on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, penalty

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271(AAB) as against 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the date of search in\nthis case is 04.02.2016 and section 271(AAB) is applicable in the present case.\n11.1 From the plain reading of section 271AAB, it is clear that where a search\nu/s.132(1) was initiated on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, penalty

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271(AAB) as against 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the date of search in\nthis case is 04.02.2016 and section 271(AAB) is applicable in the present case.\n11.1 From the plain reading of section 271AAB, it is clear that where a search\nu/s.132(1) was initiated on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, penalty

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income