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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), the Id. CIT(A) directed the A.O to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Further aggrieved by the order of Id. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before ITAT. The Tribunal observed as follows: "We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), the Id. CIT(A) directed the A.O to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Further aggrieved by the order of Id. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before ITAT. The Tribunal observed as follows: "We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through

M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) on estimated addition is bad-in-law.” When the appeal was taken for hearing none present on behalf of the 3. Appellant. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, we find that the solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have

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

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

147 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total income was was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc was completed on 27.03.2022 wherein the total inc assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/ assessed at Rs.4,88,05,223/-. In view of the assesse . In view of the assessed income, the Assessing Officer was of the view that

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

FABRIKANT TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty of Rs. 29,02,020/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidences, documents and papers as may be necessary. 3. The issue arising

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses