LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 234E. 3.2 The case of the assessee

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 234E. 3.2 The case of the assessee

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

200% of tax sought to be evaded which in appeal was reduced to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The issue is whether on the facts of the case penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 6.1 A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is only a civil liability as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26-08-2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee , the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

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

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

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

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

3,36,065/- (gifts) 2006-07 50,18,750 - 2007-08 50,18,750 - 2008-09 50,18,750 9,71,220/- (renovation& electronic items purchased) Subsequently, the penalty proceeding was initiated and the penalty was levied. The assessee challenged the penalty before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) restricted to levy the penalty upon the amount of Rs.1

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

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