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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

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

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

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

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

25 years and had also received interest-free deposit of Rs.67 cr. from the bank. The annual rental value of the property, on the basis of valuation done by a Government registered valuer was found to be Rs.75,63,360/- per annum. Accordingly, penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the annual rental value of Rs.1

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271

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

25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) wherein it was decided that "Section 271(1)(c), read with section 37(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Penalty- For concealment of income - Bona fide mistake - Assessment year 2000-01 -Assessee firm filed its return of income along with tax audit report - In its tax audit report it was indicated that provision towards payment