ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) The AO relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd(191 taxman 179) and the decision in case of MAK DATA Ltd. 11.4 During the appeal proceedings as discussed in para 3 above, in spite of issuing several notices, the appellant has not complied to the same

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

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

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 115JC of the Act also.” We have observed that the assessee company did raised this contention before the AO that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Limited(supra) , the tax-payer is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the tax is payable

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 115JC of the Act also.” We have observed that the assessee company did raised this contention before the AO that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Limited(supra) , the tax-payer is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the tax is payable

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 115JC of the Act also.” We have observed that the assessee company did raised this contention before the AO that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Limited(supra) , the tax-payer is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the tax is payable

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 115JC of the Act also.” We have observed that the assessee company did raised this contention before the AO that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Limited(supra) , the tax-payer is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the tax is payable

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)

271 r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.12.2009 wherein no charge has been specified. Our attention was also drawn to said penalty notice dated 29.12.2009 which is placed in paper book filed by the assessee at page no. 1 & 2. Our attention was drawn to page no. 68 to 72 of the paper book wherein the contention raised

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)

271 r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.12.2009 wherein no charge has been specified. Our attention was also drawn to said penalty notice dated 29.12.2009 which is placed in paper book filed by the assessee at page no. 1 & 2. Our attention was drawn to page no. 68 to 72 of the paper book wherein the contention raised

ARUN RAVINDRANATH SAWHNEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Assessee is only trying to propose various theories when he was confronted with hard evidence which clearly establishes that there is deliberate concealment of income. The contention of assessee that the declaration is voluntary cannot be accepted as the assessee declared the amount only when he was left with no escape route on being

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

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 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

BERMACO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

u/s 271 is, in our view, necessary before the provisions of the explanation therein are applied. This case has nowhere been argued in the case of Samson Perincherry or Manjunatha Cotton which has a strong relevance for the application of the said section. vi) I am also relying on the two judgments of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case

NANDKISHOR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide penalty orders 29.3.2010 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty of Rs.8,36,850/- on the assessee-firm vide penalty orders dated 29.3.2010 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the assessee-firm carried the matter before the learned