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

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

172(7) of the Act, there is any excess payment made by the assessee, then the assessee would be entitled to it and also interest thereon under Section 214 of the Act. We answer the question referred to the High Court in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. ....." 52. Lastly, in the case

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex(India) Ltd (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate

SHRI SANJAYKUMAR BABULAL JAIN,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-6(3), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Dcit, Cc-6(3), 28, Kewal Industries Estate, Sb 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aefpj 7802 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Karan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

172/- and deleted the balance and deleted the balance additions made by the Assessing Officer additions made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly ccordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer after giving opportunity of being heard, levied Assessing Officer after giving opportunity of being heard Assessing Officer after giving opportunity of being heard penalty of Rs.75,857/ penalty of Rs.75,857/- vide

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition was not sustainable. It was held by Ld CIT(A) that the notice issued for imposing penalty was not valid notice because it has mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income despite the fact that AO has initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c))\nACIT, CC-38, Room no.\nVs.\nM/s. United Phosphorous Ltd.\n32(1), Ayakar Bhavan,\nUniphos House, Madhu Park,\nMaharishi Karve Rd.,\n11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai.\nMumbai-400020.\nPAN: AAACU 3440 P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nMs. Vasanti Patel Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18/03/2025\nDate

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

4 DCIT vs. M/s Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd “7.2 Finding on GOA No. 1 and 2:- a) AO made addition u/s.68 of Act of Rs.1,85,00,000/- being opening balance payable to M/s. SCL as on 01.04.2011 on account of share of JV expenses which was paid by an associate concern M/s. DIPL on behalf of appellant during

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of the assessee.\nAccordingly notice u/s. 274 rws 271(1)(c) is being issued\nseparately.\"\n8. It is evident from the above that the AO has made addition for\ncredit card expenses only on the basis of the Annual Information Return\navailable with the Income Tax Department and there

NAYANKUMAR JAYANTILAL BALU,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/S 271(1)(c)\nके संबंध में मेरे यहां होने वाली कार्रवाई के दौरान मुझे पतीत\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment Year 2009-10 it appears to\nme that You:-\n* बिना उचित कारण के वह आय विवरणी नहीं दी है जो आपको भारतीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1922 की\n22(1), 22(2) / 34 के

MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

172/- is\nthus deleted. Ground No.5 taken by the assessee is allowed.\n\n6.\nIn the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.\n\n7.\nNow, we take up ITA No.134/Mum/2024 which is in respect of\npenalty of Rs.9,24,814/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this\nrespect, assessee has challenged the imposition of said

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly notice u/s. 274 rws 271(1)(c) is being issued separately.” 8. It is evident from the above that the AO has made addition for credit card expenses only on the basis of the Annual Information Return available with the Income Tax Department and there

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly notice u/s. 274 rws 271(1)(c) is being issued separately.” 8. It is evident from the above that the AO has made addition for credit card expenses only on the basis of the Annual Information Return available with the Income Tax Department and there

NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly notice u/s. 274 rws 271(1)(c) is being issued separately.” 8. It is evident from the above that the AO has made addition for credit card expenses only on the basis of the Annual Information Return available with the Income Tax Department and there