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) of the Act on an estimated income/additions... What follows from the above discussion is that where income is estimated or disallowance of expenses is made on estimate basis, there can be no penalty. The raison d'etre for nonimposition of penalty in both the situations is that there is lack of precision as to concealment

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) of the Act on an estimated income/additions... What follows from the above discussion is that where income is estimated or disallowance of expenses is made on estimate basis, there can be no penalty. The raison d'etre for nonimposition of penalty in both the situations is that there is lack of precision as to concealment

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. Thus, the assessee must be informed on the ground the assessee must be informed on the ground

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. Thus, the assessee must be informed on the ground the assessee must be informed on the ground

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), ie, whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 6.5 Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (HC), a Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. /s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. /s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Court (supra) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: “178. Therefore, in every instance

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

u/s 274 read with Sec. 271(1)(c) dated 23.12.2019 as referred above in this order without specifying whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. With the assistance of learned representative, we have gone through the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 23.02.2019 the relevant part

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05. 02.2010. On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that assessing officer has not specified whether the penalty is being levied on account of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant part of the notice is reproduced as under

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05. 02.2010. On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that assessing officer has not specified whether the penalty is being levied on account of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant part of the notice is reproduced as under

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not specified any limb for which the notices were issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notices specifying the charge for which notices were

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 274 r.w.s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act, it is seen that the AO is not certain as to under which\nlimb the penalty was to be levied. Considering these facts of the case, I\nam of the view that non-mentioning of relevant limb in the penalty notice\nis a substantive defect and infirmity which goes

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2011, the relevant operating part of the notice is reproduced as under: P a g e | 15 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that assessing officer has not specified whether the penalty is being levied

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2011, the relevant operating part of the notice is reproduced as under: P a g e | 15 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that assessing officer has not specified whether the penalty is being levied