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 ,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

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,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

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

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

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

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

DCIT 19.1 MUMBAI, LALBAG MUMBAI vs. AMBIKA DIAMONDS, BKC MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

234/- by estimating 8% Gross Profit (GP) on bogus purchases. The CIT(A) on further appeal gave partial relief to the assessee by reducing the GP rate to 4% of bogus purchases. The AO subsequently initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) to levy a penalty of Rs. 35,899/-. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1) (c) of the Act but\nratio laid down in these judgments also holds well in present case.\n6.2 As regards the appellant's claim that there was no loss of\nrevenue to the Department and hence, penalty should be dropped,\nI find that the AO already negate this contention of the assesee by\nstating that loss is nothing

SHEELA DANIEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI, BKC BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

234 and initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c),\n\n3\nITA No.2675/Mum/2024\nSheela Daniel\n\n[D]General;\n\n• The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal\nbefore its conclusion.\n\n• This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full.,\n•\nA Detailed paper book along with

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BORIVALI(WEST) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenew Infrastructure Private Limited V. Acit- 13(1)(1) 23, B, Ganjawala Apartment 218, 2Nd Floor Svp Road, Borivali (W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400092 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaccn1678G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Department Represented By :

234 & initiation of penalty u/s 271[1][c]. [D] General: The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. A detailed paper book will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

ASHISH RAVINDRA VAIDYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-24(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

234 & initiation of penalty u/s 271 [l][c]. [D] General: - • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. • A detailed paper book will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

234 Тахтап 0300 (Delhi).\nIn the case of Jitendra Virwani vs. DCIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 38\n(Bangalore Trib) dated 30.07.2021, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore has held\nthat assessment u/s. 153A can be made even if no incriminating material\nwas found during search action. In this judgment, the above cited\njudgments of the appellant have actually been considered

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act. We find that the challenge to interest u/s 234 of the Act is misconceived. The provisions of section 234 deals with tax paid by deduction or advance payment. The said section was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In so far as ; challenge to initiation of penalty

MAMTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act. We find that the challenge to interest u/s 234 of the Act is misconceived. The provisions of section 234 deals with tax paid by deduction or advance payment. The said section was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In so far as ; challenge to initiation of penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

234 Taxman 0300 (Delhi). In the case of Jitendra Virwani vs. DCIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 38 In the case of Jitendra Virwani vs. DCIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 38 In the case of Jitendra Virwani vs. DCIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 38 (Bangalore Trib) dated 30.07.202 (Bangalore Trib) dated 30.07.2021, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore has held 1, the Hon'ble ITAT