RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

153A of the Act, making therein an addition of Rs. 5,91,95,321/- (for AY 2008-09) on account of undisclosed commission income. As a result of addition, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also initiated. Later, the assessee challenged the substantive quantum Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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

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

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

153A of the Act. On plain reading of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order