BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

702 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi828Mumbai702Jaipur271Indore221Ahmedabad220Surat211Kolkata175Pune155Bangalore144Chennai139Hyderabad126Raipur125Karnataka125Chandigarh115Rajkot99Lucknow91Allahabad63Amritsar49Agra48Visakhapatnam48Cuttack37Calcutta34Cochin32Nagpur31Patna29Dehradun26Jabalpur21Guwahati18Panaji13Jodhpur12Varanasi6SC5Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)73Addition to Income57Penalty53Section 14444Section 143(3)42Section 14739Section 271(1)(b)34Section 14831Section 153A31

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

144 of the Act was completed on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271

Showing 1–20 of 702 · Page 1 of 36

...
Section 25026
Disallowance12
Deduction11

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

144 of the Act was completed on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty on 17.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected." 19. Now in the case before me, the penalty has been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has vehemently contested

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected." 19. Now in the case before me, the penalty has been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has vehemently contested

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 1 54of the Act. No interference is called for with the order on the said ground. Accordingly, The Ground of appeal nos. 1, 2 & 3 is Dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, we have to consider

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

ATC GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

U/s 143(3): The assessment was ultimately completed under the scrutiny provision of Section 143(3) of the Act, and not ex-parte under Section 144. The order passed under Section 143(3) made no mention of the imposition of a penalty under Section 271

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

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

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:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act in case of every non acceptance of claim made by the assessee in the return of income, 6.2.35. The Hon"ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, Ahemdabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (supra) while referring in the word particulars in "inaccurate M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. particulars of income", observed

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271F

u/s 144 of the Act.It indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till

SANJIV KRISHNAKANT ASHTAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6579/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 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.6579/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Kishore PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

271 94 2005-06 144 221 4 | P a g e I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 2004-05 — 365 TOTAL 613 847 As per this chart in four years preceding F.Y. 2008-09, the assessee was in India for 847 days. Therefore, the assessee was resident in India as per provision of section 6(1)(c). Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

144 (B) of the Act, the AO has not recorded clear cut satisfaction with regard to the initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (D) of the Act and thus, attracts the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) wherein

NILOFAR JALAL LAKHAN ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSELLMENT CENTRE 2 (1) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, National Faceless Assessment Crescent Bay, Tower 6, Flat No. Centre Dcit 2(1), Delhi. 3904, Jerbai Wadia Road, Vs. Bhoiwada, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Afvpj 9774 L Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. V.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. V.C. Shah, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

144 was completed on address i.e. 29, 1st Floor, Sonawala Bldg., Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai Floor, Sonawala Bldg., Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai Floor, Sonawala Bldg., Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400023. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) 400023. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) i.e. impugned order has mpugned order has been served upon address 204, 3H Kalpataru Aura

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5643/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section. 144 of the Act, that meant the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO and, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5644/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section. 144 of the Act, that meant the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO and, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5648/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section. 144 of the Act, that meant the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO and, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5642/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section. 144 of the Act, that meant the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO and, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6098/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

144 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.135,23,021/- comprising of salary of Rs.65,37,783/-, interest of Rs.9,97,380/- and Time Deposit of Rs.59,87,858/-, which was treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment

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

ITA 706/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

144 read with section 147 of the Act made an addition of Rs.77,18,990/-. Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

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

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

144 read with section 147 of the Act made an addition of Rs.77,18,990/-. Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section