SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. We uphold levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.” We are of the view that explanation offered by the assessee cannot

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)

section 271(1)(c) in this case. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied.” 7. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered under identical circumstances, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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)

21 (c) Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. (d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. (f) Even

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has brought out clear facts to the effect 8 ITA 3011/Mum/2016 that although the AO has not framed the assessee under a particular charge, at the time of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), but while levying penalty u/s

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

21,77,620/- inter-cilia making additions towards disallowance of corporate revenue on which exemption under section 10A/10AA was claimed amounting to Rs.66,57,7211-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) has been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 12.03.14. The assessee neither appeared

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

5. It was submitted that penalty proceeding were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty was later levied on both the issues also on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Our attention was drawn to page 5/paper book filed by the assessee with tribunal, wherein notice dated 30.11.2011 issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) read

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

5 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED: 9. As per provisions of section 271 (J)(c) of the Income tax Act, for a just levy of penalty, there are some primary requirements that need to be fulfilled. Relevant provisions of the Act are as under: 10. Section 271 of the Act provides : "(1) If the Assessing Officer

PRINCE CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

21, Mumbai dated 12.08.2016 confirming the levy of penalty of `16,20,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of providing consultancy services, filed its return of income

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

21,48,050/- 2005-06 18,29,200/- 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

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

section 271(1)(c) ; in show cause notice dated 15.01.2014, admittedly the AO has not struck off between concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income; in penalty order at para 5, AO holds “by making such improper claim of depreciation, the assessee has willfully reduced its incidence of taxation and has thereby concealed its income as well as furnished