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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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)

section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether there was concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Issue of printed form where all grounds are mentioned could not satisfy the requirement of law. The assessee should know grounds which he has to read specifically. Taking up penalty proceedings under one limb and finding the assessee guilty on another limb

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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)

section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether there was concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Issue of printed form where all grounds are mentioned could not satisfy the requirement of law. The assessee should know grounds which he has to read specifically. Taking up penalty proceedings under one limb and finding the assessee guilty on another limb

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various\nadditions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\nAfter receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer\nissued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty might\nnot

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

172 taxmann.com 786(Bom) and Unitech Reliable Projects P.Ltd(2024) 166 taxmann.com 135(SC).The ld.DR has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have gone through the above penalty notice and find that the AO issued notice u/s 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act, stating that: “you have concealed the particulars of your income

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA FINSTOCK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA FINSTOCK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA LAND DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA DESIGNER CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HOME DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HI RISE BUILDERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA DESIGNER CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HOME DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HOME DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

172, 202, 203, 218 & 219 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271E/271D of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, their Lordships have held that prior to the decision of the Court in 12 & other 39 files M/s. Lodha Builders