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

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.1,30,731/- for the A.Y. 2002-03 and for the remaining years, the penalty was ordered to be deleted

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 5. The precise issue raised by the assessee in the additional grounds is that the ld Addl CIT is not vested with jurisdiction in accordance with the statutory provisions to act as an Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment order M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. passed is without jurisdiction, hence, null and void

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

2. In both these appeals assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining levy of penalty on merits as well as on technical grounds. Additional grounds were also raised by the assessee raising technical ground stating that penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied without specifying specific limb of section. 271(1)(c) for violation

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

2. In both these appeals assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining levy of penalty on merits as well as on technical grounds. Additional grounds were also raised by the assessee raising technical ground stating that penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied without specifying specific limb of section. 271(1)(c) for violation

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

2. In both these appeals assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining levy of penalty on merits as well as on technical grounds. Additional grounds were also raised by the assessee raising technical ground stating that penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied without specifying specific limb of section. 271(1)(c) for violation

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

220 (SC) wherein it was held that where income disclosed by assessee in return and income assessed was nil, no penalty was leviable under section 271(1)(c). 1. Appellant invites attention that the return filed for the current year has been subjected to assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The LAO had passed a suitable order after

DCIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI vs. ANUPAMA P JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.925/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Asst. Cit, Central Circle-20, Smt. Anupama P. Jain Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, बिाम/ B-201, Minoo Minar, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Actpj 2249 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri T. A. Khan प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / : 10.07.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 06.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07, In The Matter Of Penalty Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s. 132(4) : (i) Construction on agricultural land Rs.32,05,000 (ii) Shares of Vaibhav Healthcare P. Ltd. Rs. 3,86,45,000 The Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act refers to only money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things. So the Explanation 5 refers to only movable assets. But in this case

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

271(1) (c) would have been separately considered by the Assessing Officer, which is mutually exclusive from the levy of Penalty under Section 271G of the Act in this case. Both these penalty provisions are mutually exclusive and not overlapping. The fact that making an ALP adjustment is not a condition precedent for levy of penalty under section 271G

SUSHIL S. JHUNJHUNWALA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3001 To 3007/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2008-09) Shushil S. Jhujhunwala (Huf) Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) बिधम/ Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Meghna Apt, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajhs5267C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income

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

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

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

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

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

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

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

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

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. MACROTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

271 held that here was reasonable cause u/s. 273B and held as under:- "3. Regarding Question No.(i) :- (a) The common impugned order of the Tribunal arises from the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty upon the respondents under Section 271D of the Act for breach of Section 269SS of the Act. This penalty

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

220(2) of the Act as well as imposition of penalty under Section 221 of the Act was to be initiated. As per paragraph no.6, the assessee was directed to file an appeal before the learned CIT (A)-21, Mumbai. This notice of payment was signed by the learned Assessing Officer and served on the assessee. Subsequently, the learned Assessing

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 above, the assessing\nofficer has erred in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of the\naddition of Rs.1,72,92,564/- on account of alleged undervaluation of\nstock. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty on this issue\nwithout any discussion and opportunity to present the case on merits.\n4. The appellant respectfully submits that levy

CIFCO FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II), CR 7,, MUMBAI

In the result all 16 appeals related to the assessee are disposed off

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench Mumbai Before Sri Amit Shukla J M & Prashant Maharishi Am In The Matter Of Cifco Finance Limited, [ Aaacc1765F] Bhupen Chambers, Dalal Street, Mumbai V The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax Aykar Bhavan 4Th Floor , M K Road Mumbai 20

2,220,587 is confirmed. 78. Briefly stated the facts shows that as in the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act for assessment year 2004 – 05 the learned assessing officer made several additions. Against additions/disallowances the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A) was dismissed, therefore, the learned AO levied penalty u/s 271

M/S. CIFCO FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD-II) CR-7, MUMBAI

In the result all 16 appeals related to the assessee are disposed off

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench Mumbai Before Sri Amit Shukla J M & Prashant Maharishi Am In The Matter Of Cifco Finance Limited, [ Aaacc1765F] Bhupen Chambers, Dalal Street, Mumbai V The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax Aykar Bhavan 4Th Floor , M K Road Mumbai 20

2,220,587 is confirmed. 78. Briefly stated the facts shows that as in the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act for assessment year 2004 – 05 the learned assessing officer made several additions. Against additions/disallowances the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A) was dismissed, therefore, the learned AO levied penalty u/s 271