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 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty 18 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad 8. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

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

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 , 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 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

SHORELINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle- 1(2), 29 Dar-Ul.Habib, Marine Drive, Old Cgo Building, 9Th Floor, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021

u/s 271(1) (c] due to both the limbs of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars being established.” As could be seen from the above quoted portion, learned Departmental Representative has tried to make out a case that the assessing officer had intended to levy penalty under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This submission

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain penalty. In CIT v. Atual Mohan Bindal [2009] 183 Taxman 444 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at para

SHORELINE HOTEL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

u/s 271(1) (c] due to Shoreline Hotel Ltd, Mumbai. both the limbs of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars being established.” As could be seen from the above quoted portion, learned Departmental Representative has tried to make out a case that the assessing officer had intended to levy penalty under both the limbs of section 271

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

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

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

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

SHAKIL HAMID SHEIKH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

183, Income Tax – 22(3), v. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. HPCL, MIDC, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : ABQPS2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 24-08-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2016 आदेश