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

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

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various additions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Reliance Industries Ltd After receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

21[ section 271 , section section 271A, 22 [ section 271A section 271AA,] section 271AA 271B 23[, section 271BA section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section section 271D, section 271D section 271F, 27 271E, 26 [ 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 29 [ section 271G section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub (c) or clause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be deleted, since the appellant is assessed to tax under MAT provisions and the penalty has been levied with reference to additions / disallowances made under the normal provisions of the Act.\n4.1 As per the order of the AO dated 05.02.2021 giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various\nadditions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\nAfter receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer\nissued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty might\nnot

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

21,780/-\n(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.21,780/- being 100% of the tax on notional income of Rs.89,929/- representing the annual letting value determined by AO and further erred in levying penalty u/s 271

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

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

5 to section\n271(1)(c)\n9.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar\n[2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta), while deciding matter\nrelated to section 271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original

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

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

5 to section\n271(1)(c)\n9.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar\n[2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta), while deciding matter\nrelated to section 271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

5,91,95,321/- (for AY 2008-09) on account of undisclosed commission income. As a result of addition, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also initiated. Later, the assessee challenged the substantive quantum Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain addition before the ld. CIT(A), which was disposed

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

5,91,95,321/- (for AY 2008-09) on account of undisclosed commission income. As a result of addition, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also initiated. Later, the assessee challenged the substantive quantum Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain addition before the ld. CIT(A), which was disposed