DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. The learned D.R. has also referred to pages 11 & 13 as well as page 19 of the said order and on that basis he submitted that no doubt clause (c) of Section 271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. The learned D.R. has also referred to pages 11 & 13 as well as page 19 of the said order and on that basis he submitted that no doubt clause (c) of Section 271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. The learned D.R. has also referred to pages 11 & 13 as well as page 19 of the said order and on that basis he submitted that no doubt clause (c) of Section 271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. The learned D.R. has also referred to pages 11 & 13 as well as page 19 of the said order and on that basis he submitted that no doubt clause (c) of Section 271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. The learned D.R. has also referred to pages 11 & 13 as well as page 19 of the said order and on that basis he submitted that no doubt clause (c) of Section 271(1)(c) deals with two specific offences, i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 271 (l)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c) The appellant prays that the penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) be deleted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in the case of the assessee was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 20- 02-2014 determining total income

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

200 (Bom.). 11 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that the Assessee is a habitual offender as observed by the AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order as she has also claimed the deduction u/s

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

200 DTR (Bom)(FB) 65. He also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Ventura Textiles Ltd vs CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478 (Bom). Further, he submitted, under identical facts and circumstances, due to defect in the show cause notice issued under section 274 of the Act, the Tribunal

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

200/- 2006-07 14,75,000/- 2007-08 10,81,250/- 2008-09 1,94,300/- 10. Thus it is not denied that ultimately the addition sustained in the hands of the assessee are based on estimate. We noted further that in each of the cases, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) during the course

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

200/-. Notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was issued simultaneously on 31.12.2011 for initiating penalty 2 Shri Chandru K. Mirchandani proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO vide order dated 27.09.2013 levied penalty of `9,29,562/- on four additions/disallowances aggregating to `25,31,284/- which are listed hereunder

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

200/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 being 125% of the tax on the addition made to the extent of Rs.88,00,000/- in the assessment order passed (A.O. had levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) 7 I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 M/s Success Developers Pvt. Ltd of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.29,23,360/- being

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

section 274 of the Act on 04.03.2014 and served on the assessee. In response assessee filed a letter dated 01.07.2014, for the sake of convenience, it is reproduced below: '1. In the order of assessment, you honour had disallowed the purchases of F. Y. 200&-09 amounting to Rs. 27,57,768/- stating purchases are from suspicious dealers as recognized

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

200) (Guj), CIT v. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani (311 ITR 327). Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 11 Finally, relying on the decision in Sesa Resources Ltd. v. ACIT (38 taxmann.com 224); ITO v. Sanjeev Mishra (41 SOT 17), the Ld. counsel submits that mere denial of claim would not per se result in levy of penalty u/s 271

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice