AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

196/- Stock exchange expenses Rs. 22,190/- Demat charges Rs. 804/- Legal expenses Rs. 4,556/- Security transaction tax Rs. 6,221/- Office expenses Rs. 3,121/- Interest paid Rs. 13,758/- -------------------- Rs. 13,87,846/- =========== The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish the details of expenses. Aggrieved

SHAH JAIN ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 153A read with section 143(3), which lacks initiation itself. The penalty which has been levied on the basis of the second assessment order, is not sustainable in law, for the reasons that firstly, there is no initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, and secondly, there is to be prima facie satisfaction in the assessment order

HITESH JAYANTILAL MODI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (Huf) Income-Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), B-302, Mahvideh, Near Municipal Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Garden, Chandavarkar Road, Mumbai. Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aabhh 3508 K Appellant Respondent

196 Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2 Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to 1.2 Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to 1.2 Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant and also the appreciate the submissions made

MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

196 (Ker). Further, the Ld. DR submits that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source and the penalty u/s 271C is rightly levied by the AO. Thus he supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

196 (Ker). Further, the Ld. DR submits that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source and the penalty u/s 271C is rightly levied by the AO. Thus he supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

196 Taxman 21 (Del) and others. In case of Devsons Pvt Ltd, Hon'ble Delhi HC has held as under: "29. We find no substance in the aforesaid contention as it is well settled that though assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, and the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings may constitute evidence in the course of penalty proceedings

HARILAL MULUKCHAND METHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Harilal Mulukchand Mehta Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Flat No.2, Tannar Kutir, Mumbai Vs. Plot No.540, 17Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan Aadpm4219L (Appellant) Respondent)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act? We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT [291 ITR 519] on the issue of capital gain on the basis of the valuer’s report, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, the penalty was deleted and relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEEPAK RAJESH BHANDARI,THANE vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on unsecured loan added by the AO amounting to ₹ 272500/- and sundry creditors outstanding amounting to ₹ 1,03,41,196

SHREECHAND BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

196)(AP), this court held that the absence of any mention in the order of assessment that proceedings under section 271(1)(c) would be initiated makes the initiation of such proceedings, untenable.” 8. We have already noted that the Assessing Officer did not record any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings or did he mention anything about the penalty

SHREECHAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

196)(AP), this court held that the absence of any mention in the order of assessment that proceedings under section 271(1)(c) would be initiated makes the initiation of such proceedings, untenable.” 8. We have already noted that the Assessing Officer did not record any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings or did he mention anything about the penalty

ANIL MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The quantum of penalty levied for all the three years: अ"नल मेहरा 2 Anil Mehra ITA 1117/M/12 ITA 1118/M/12 ITA 1119/M/12 Assessment year Quantum penalty levied 2001-02 Rs.5,98,661/- 2002-03 Rs.2,31,900/- 2003-04 Rs. 73,774/- 2. We will first

ANIL MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The quantum of penalty levied for all the three years: अ"नल मेहरा 2 Anil Mehra ITA 1117/M/12 ITA 1118/M/12 ITA 1119/M/12 Assessment year Quantum penalty levied 2001-02 Rs.5,98,661/- 2002-03 Rs.2,31,900/- 2003-04 Rs. 73,774/- 2. We will first

ANIL MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The quantum of penalty levied for all the three years: अ"नल मेहरा 2 Anil Mehra ITA 1117/M/12 ITA 1118/M/12 ITA 1119/M/12 Assessment year Quantum penalty levied 2001-02 Rs.5,98,661/- 2002-03 Rs.2,31,900/- 2003-04 Rs. 73,774/- 2. We will first

ACIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. AKSHAR DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

196 Taxman 21 (Del) 11. The assessee in the present case had made a bona-fide claim and hence following the apex court judgement and other courts as above, it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is not leviable in this case. 12. The claim of the AO in the order u/s 271

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC) viii. CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC) viii. CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported

SIDHARATH S KAPUR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 26(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.792/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sidharath S. Kapoor, Dy. Acit 35(3), बनाम/ 10 Th Floor, C-12, 4 Th Floor, V. 37 Lovedale Aprts., Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Opp Fariyas Hotel, Colaba, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aajpk7956Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

196/- in his bank account , while the assessee has offered Rs. 17,46,736/- as interest income in his return of income filed with the Revenue. Thus, there was an addition of Rs.6,89,982/- to the returned income by the AO in quantum assessment. Similarly, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had offered salary income

SMT HARHSA NITIN THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee