GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LIMITED ,CHURCHGATE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable. Therefore, the penalty imposed on this addition is bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O had not ticked in the notice issued for levying penalty whether he intended to charge penalty for underreporting or for misreporting. The penalty notice does not clarify the same and that

EXIM TRAC,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(431)(91), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the structure and language of structure and language of section 270A differ, defining distinct section 270A differ, defining distinct categories of underreporting and misreporting. categories of underreporting and misreporting. 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co-operation and bona fide intent operation and bona fide intent cannot

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.14.95.851/-. M/s. Korbusier Kinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.14.95.851/-. M/s. Korbusier Kinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.14.95.851/-. M/s. Korbusier Kinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.14.95.851/-. M/s. Korbusier Kinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision

AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.14.95.851/-. M/s. KorbusierKinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision

ITO-23(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CHETAK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order30/03/2016. 2. The grounds raised by the parties are as under:- Assessee: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer which is bad in law as the notice issued by him u/s 271

CHETAK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order30/03/2016. 2. The grounds raised by the parties are as under:- Assessee: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer which is bad in law as the notice issued by him u/s 271