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

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

section 271(1)(c), viz. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, on the said count also the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The ld. D.R strongly objected to the raising of the preliminary objection by the assessee in respect of the validity of the penalty proceedings, for the reason that

JAYPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. WARD-28(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, Gr Flr Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bccps 4784 A Appellant Respondent

234 &initiating penalty u/s 271[1][c]. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT[A] NFAC 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT[A] NFAC 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT[A] NFAC erred in passing order without

JITENDRA J. GOWDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5753/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

234 of the Act by way of levy of interest, which, in the present case, had been paid without demur. viii) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income- tax, 120071 291 1 T 0519 (SC): Clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Income-fax Apt, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary

OPTIONS DEVELOPRS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CE CIR 22, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

section 271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be decided on the merits, did not amount to an admission of concealment of income and the levy of penalty on such basis was liable to be quashed.” From the above, it is clear that penalty cannot be levied merely on the admission of the assessee and there must

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and therefore, the issue being premature at this stage therefore

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been levied by way of this order and therefore, the issue being premature at this stage therefore

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

234 D a. The Ld. AO. erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s. 234D of Rs. 37,93,211 without giving any opportunity of hearing and further erred in law in not passing any speaking order for the levy of interest. b. Your appellant denies any liability of payment of interest and further submits that the interest

PAVILLE PROJECTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015

234/-. Accordingly, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 14,40,727/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. In the first appeal, the Ld.CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the said findings

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that: a) Assessee has neither furnished any inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed any income. b) Rent income of Court Chambers property was fixed since from 1967 and same was offered by assessee and accepted

MEMON CO OP BANK LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAAT0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue by: Ajay Chandra (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against

ITO, WARD - 3(2), THANE vs. RAMMANGAL S.GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

234, after making ad–hoc addition of ` 63,53,010 on account of bogus purchases made from six parties. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee being aggrieved by the quantum assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer filed appeal before the first appellate authority