SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

section. Our above say is also supported by the following judicial decisions on the issue: - (i) CIT -vs- Kiran & Co. 217 ITR 326 (Bombay) (1996) 6 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad The assessee had made an conditional offer of an amount to taxation subject to non- levy of penalty u/s 271

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) ; in show cause notice dated 15.01.2014, admittedly the AO has not struck off between concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income; in penalty order at para 5, AO holds “by making such improper claim of depreciation, the assessee has willfully reduced its incidence of taxation and has thereby concealed its income as well as furnished

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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’).

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

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

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

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:

168, wherein it was held that section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money. Further, the said issue has been also settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 32, wherein it was categorically held that in order

DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. UNISYNTH CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

168 ITR 705 (SC) 3.6. In view of the above discussion, In my opinion penalty cannot be levied in present case. Thereby, the assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 14,53,833/-. Hence, these ground of appeal is ALLOWED” 3.4.2 From a perusal of the finding

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(l) (c) of the Act requires the AO to prove mens -rea. 5.7. Penalty u/s.271(l) (c) of the Act is attracted where in the course or any proceedings under the Act, the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars

JM FINANCIAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J M SHARE & STOCK BROKERS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued by the ld AO on 23.1.2014 and 3.3.2014 (i.e in the second quantum assessment proceedings) which are enclosed in pages 67 to 69 of the paper book filed before us. From the perusal of the said notices, we find that the ld AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

POSCO MAHARASHTRA STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiposco Maharashtra Steel Vs. Dcit, Panvel Circle Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan 1St Floor, Head Office Mumbai-400 020 Plot No.C-1 Vile Bhagad Industrial Area Mangaon, Raigad Maharashtra-412 107

section, submissions of the appellant, the observations of the AO in the penalty order, case laws relied upon and material placed on record. As regards the request for admission of additional ground-that the penalty levied is bad in law as the AO had failed to mention in the penalty notice-whether the penalty notice was issued for concealment

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and prayed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty be upheld. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. In the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) after considering the assessee’s submissions

DY CIT CC 2 (3), MUMBAI vs. MS PREITY ZINTA , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

u/s. 271(1)(c) is quashed.” 8. Against the above order Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has filed cross objection. Since the cross objection challenges the jurisdiction we address the same first. The grounds raised in this regard may be repeated here for the sake of clarity :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE-9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GOLKUNDA DIAMONDS & JEWELLERY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 271(1)(c)”. In the light of above, Tribunal was of considered view that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified to confirm the penalty. Therefore, order of ld. CIT(A) was set aside.” 6.1.7 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Deepak Gogri, Mumbai vs ITO 25(3)(2) 1396/MUM/2017 "In so far as the penalty levied

DCIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. MAHARASHTRA STEEL FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, THANE

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

168 ITR 705. 5 The AO did not accept the assessee's explanation and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by observing that enquiries and investigation of the Sales Tax Department clearly revealed the racket involving Hawala dealers and beneficiaries. Further, the AO observed that the revised return filed by the assessee was filed after receiving notice u/s

ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAM HASMUKHBHAI JAGDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the AO to be false." 3 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

ITO WARD 3 (5), KALYAN vs. SHRI. LAXMAN B NANKAR, DOMBIVALI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito, Ward 3(5), Shri Laxman B Nankar, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, M/S Pratibha Textile, Murbad Road, Kalyan West Industries, 406, Laxmi Sagar, Vs. Chs, Tilak Road, Dombivali (East) Pan: Abwpn3608G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In order to impose penalty there must be cogent evidence to establish that the assessee has either concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The findings of the Ld. CIT (A) read as under:- “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the AO, submission

INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GOLDSTAR JEWELLERY INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 271(1)(c)”. In the light of above, Tribunal was of considered view that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified to confirm the penalty. Therefore, order of ld. CIT(A) was set aside.” 6.1.7 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Deepak Gogri, Mumbai vs ITO 25(3)(2) 1396/MUM/2017. "In so far as the penalty levied