SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

u/s. 271(1)(c) in cases where the assessee provides a bonafide explanation for the claims made in the return of income and where the assessee has disclosed all facts and details relating to the same. In support of its claim, the Appellant has also relied on certain judicial precedents, most notably the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

194A) (c) TDS-1941(b) Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, 7,50,200 Section 1941(b) (d) AIR-002 Paid Rs. 2,00,000 or more 10,27,000 against Credit Card bills Total 1,14,49,259 3 Chattanathan Devarajan AY 2014-15 3.1. Since the amount exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax for which

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK CHANDERBHAN SUDHIJA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

u/s dated 30.12.2016 for the AY 2014-15 passed by the Ward 28(1)(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”)." The ld CIT (A) records following Grounds of appeal :- 09. i. Because, order passed under Section 143(3) is wholly without jurisdiction and is bad in law ii. Because, Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

PANEXCELL CLINICAL LAB PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGES OF INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Penalty under section 271(1)(c).” The Appellant has raised the following Additional Grounds of appeal 3. vide letter dated 04/07/2023: “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law and void ab-initio on the ground that based

KALLIANJI CHATURBHUJ AND VIJAY CANTOL CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(4), MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars be deleted” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee being a charitable trust having PAN - AAATB0539K, whose accounts are being audited under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged