DY.CIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI, INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

194 Taxman 387 (HC), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has propounded that once the tax liability of assessee is determined based on the book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed based on income computed under the normal provisions of the Act. The ratio propounded in the aforesaid

NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANG -7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

194 Taxman 387 (HC), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has propounded that once the tax liability of assessee is determined based on the book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed based on income computed under the normal provisions of the Act. The ratio propounded in the aforesaid

NATIONAL COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

194 Taxman 387 (HC), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has propounded that once the tax liability of assessee is determined based on the book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed based on income computed under the normal provisions of the Act. The ratio propounded in the aforesaid

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ITA No. 1661 & 1660/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas Shah to as ―the Act‖] dated 14.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on account of estimation on bogus purchases. 2. Since the facts of both the appeals filed by the assessee

CLASSIC SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

section 274 r.w.s. 271 is a printed form of notice not specifying the charge brought against the appellants that is, whether it is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment thereof, and as such, the notice suffers from the virus of non-application of mind and hence, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH (THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

SUSHIL RAJENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and\nwordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other.\nAlthough, the term 'tax evasion' has been redefined by way of 'under reporting\nof income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income'\nbut it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHAHRUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of revenue\nand it was observed:-\n9. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the co-ordinate Bench\nof this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2010-11, 194 TTJ 777\ndated 22/05/2010 had deleted the penalty on the very same issue on the\nground that

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred\nto as “the Act”] dated 14.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11\nrespectively, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on account\nof estimation on bogus purchases.\n\n2. Since the facts of both the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly\nsame and parties

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same\n assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely\nconsequential and arise directly out of the additions made in\nthe quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard\ntogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.\n2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.\n4975/Mum/2025

VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

194/-, (6) Insurance premium paid for Rs.7,20,965/ (6) Insurance premium paid for Rs.7,20,965/-, Vinay Parmanand Hariani 4 (7) Payment of purchase of properties amou of purchase of properties amounting to Rs.4,58,117/ nting to Rs.4,58,117/-. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant.” ITA No.6671-Mum-2017 A.Y.2013-14 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that Appellant is a company engaged, inter alia, in providing cellular telecommunication services. The Appellant filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 29/11/2013 declaring total income of INR 7,20,37,88,924/-. The case

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely consequential and arise directly out of the additions made in the quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No. 4975/Mum/2025. In this

ASIF HUSSAIN SHAH SAYAD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

u/s 270A dated 28.07.2023 and have levied penalty of Rs.8,06,343/-. Requesting Your Honour, to delete the additions made to the Total income of the 2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO under s. 270A of the Act is bad-in-law and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal