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

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

P CUBE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR.13(1)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

Section 271(1)(c), has been explained by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. as\nreported in 322 ITR 158 wherein it has been held as under:\n\"A glance at the provision of s. 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to\nbe covered, there

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held as follows: "19. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held as follows: "19. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held as follows: "19. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held as follows: "19. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars

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