CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

4 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited particulars or to conceal. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents in this regard. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. Assessee

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

4 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited particulars or to conceal. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents in this regard. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. Assessee

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

4 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited particulars or to conceal. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents in this regard. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. Assessee

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

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

4 6. It is clear from bare reading of the above provision that 6. It is clear from bare reading of the above provision that 6. It is clear from bare reading of the above provision that whether or not the penalty as envisaged in Section 271F whether or not the penalty as envisaged in Section 271F whether

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj) has also held that the imposition of penalty cannot be justified merely because of additions being sustained and similar view was earlier expressed by the same High Court in CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj) and CIT vs. Vinay Chand Hiralal (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj) for penalty not to be levied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Ac, 1922\nor under Section 142(1) / 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\nNo.\ndated\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 A.M. on 10.01.2012 and show\ncause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under Section 271

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

4 A.Y. 2010-11 Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. income". Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the AO has initiated penalty on both the limbs. He did not strike off the irrelevant portion and has not shown whether he has initiated penalty on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In such a situation, the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4\nITA No. 4304/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13\nM. Lakhamsi & Co.\nit was only after 10 years, when appeals were listed for final hearing,\nthis issue is sought to be raised. Thus, on facts, it could be safely\nconcluded that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had\ncaused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4\nITA No. 1152/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2014-15\nMukon Construction Private Limited\nr/w, section 271 of the Act. Principles of Natural Justice cannot be read\nin abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide\nnetwork in various financial services, should definitely be precluded\nfrom raising such a plea at this belated stage. By claiming depreciation\non machinery which either

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 8. An identical issue came up before Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [434 ITR 1] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: - “Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty

ASHWIN LILADHAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 (Calcutta HC). iii. Ganesh Textiles v. CIT [253 ITR 216 (Gujarat HC)]. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed and confirmed by Id. A.O. & Id. CIT (Appeal) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income