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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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

2) was issued the assessee has submitted a letter withdrawing the claim of deduction u/s 54F. 9 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta Notices u/s 142(1) were also issued however the same were not complied and only on 07.12.2016 the assessee has filed the letter of withdrawal. This fact shows that assessee has withdrawn the claim after various notices issued

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

2. Addl. CIT v. Achal Addl. CIT v. Achal Kumar Jain [1983] 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 8. Having heard the leamed counsel

M/S SANGEETA RUSHIKESH DOIPHODE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh Ito-15(3)(1), Doiphode, Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, 8/158, Navrang Society, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Mumbai, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East) S.O. 400055. Pan No. Achpd 5219 R Appellant Respondent

penalty observing as under: “Order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 During the assessment proceedings for AY 2016 During the assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17, notice us. 142

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 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

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 271(1)(b) is to ensure that the assessee has to comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1). Penalty is attracted where there is failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act & u/s 143(2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act. It would be useful to reproduce the contents of the said notice as under:\n\"NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX АСТ, 1961,\nPAN: AAACT2152P\nOffice of the\nAsst. Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle 40, Room no 653\nAayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor\nM.K. Road

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. b) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of additional income of INR 1,95,86,904 which has been suo moto offered to tax. c) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of 2 taxability

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be considered as void ab initio. The same be held now. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming impugned penalty of Rs 55,34,03,602/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that on the facts of the case and in view

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) should not be initiated in its case. The notice was duly served on ITBA. 4.1 In reply, the assessee submitted the requisite documents which have been examined. It is seen in the P&L a/c that the assessee has shown employees cost at Rs. 2, 47, 63,183/- which is approximately 40% of the total

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 139(1) of the Act, and also for not complying with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14/10/2019. Therefore, we direct the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271F as well as u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 139(1) of the Act, and also for not complying with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14/10/2019. Therefore, we direct the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271F as well as u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

2) he, in the course of the search 4, makes a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under\nhis control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his\nreturn of income to be furnished

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

section 271 of the Act and therefore, out of total penalty of Rs.44,03,865/-, concealment penalty to the extent of Rs.6,53,800/- was upheld and the appellant got relief of Rs.37,50,065/-. P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2014-15 Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai 5. Before us, while the ld.DR relied on the orders of authorities below