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

u/s 271(1)(c)-Assessee, by mistake claimed a deduction in respect of provision towards payment of gratuity in its return of income, even though Tax Audit Report Indicated that such provision was not allowable- AO initiated penalty on assessee for concealing income- Held, fact that Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. [Para 10] Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed." 5.3 It has been held in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H) following CIT vs. Metal Products of India

PRIORITY JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), APPEALS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is\nallowed

251 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,\nM K Road, Mumbai 400020\nNo. AOT10(3)(2)/2012-13/Pen. 271(1)(c) /show cause-/ 2014-15\nDate 28.03.2015\nTo,\nPRIORITY JEWELS PVT. LTD.\nPLOT NO 121, STREET NO 15/18, MIDC,\nMAROL, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400093\nPAN: AAECP4118K\nPen/50/Pg.136/14-15\nI.T.N.S29\"\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(l)(c )OF\nTHE INCOМЕ-ТАХ АСТ

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

251 ITR 99. Therein, the Hon'ble Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218. Considering the effect of the addition of the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act and the amendment to section 271(1)(c) 9 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. of the Act by deletion

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

251 ITR 99. Therein, the Hon'ble Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218. Considering the effect of the addition of the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act and the amendment to section 271(1)(c) 9 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. of the Act by deletion

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

251 ITR 99. Therein, the Hon'ble Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218. Considering the effect of the addition of the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act and the amendment to section 271(1)(c) 9 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. of the Act by deletion

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

251 ITR 99. Therein, the Hon'ble Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218. Considering the effect of the addition of the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act and the amendment to section 271(1)(c) 9 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. of the Act by deletion

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s. 690 of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of alleged purchases and has offered no explanation of the sources of expenditure incurred on account of such purchases ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied

RANJIT PATHAK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 17.08.2021,\n23.12.2021, 04.02.2022 and 15.02.2022.\n2.2 Subsequently, vide separate orders, the AO levied penalty of\nRs.40,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) dated 16.09.2022(i.e.,\nRs.10,000/- for each of the four defaults) and penalty of\nRs.17,30,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) dated 27.09.2022.\n2.3 The assessee preferred an appeal against

RANJIT PATHAK ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 17.08.2021,\n23.12.2021, 04.02.2022 and 15.02.2022.\n\n2.2 Subsequently, vide separate orders, the AO levied penalty of\nRs.40,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) dated 16.09.2022(i.e.,\nRs.10,000/- for each of the four defaults) and penalty of\nRs.17,30,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) dated 27.09.2022.\n\n2.3 The assessee preferred

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, PAREL vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of\nPr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex(India) Ltd\n(2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of\n100% addition has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of\nestimating

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

VIRMABHAI AJABAJI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

251/- as against the addition made by the ld. A.O. amounting to Rs.2,47,45,023/-. The impugned penalty of Rs.4,20,570/- was levied on the quantum of addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. In the above factual matrix, the ld. AR had relied on the following decisions where the co-ordinate benches have held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NEVALES NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of Rs. 48,30,254/-us. 438 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" The Hon'ble Court held that the ambiguity with regard to the year of allowability of expenses for such a transition period should not be adversely viewed for the purpose of levy of penalty and more over all the particulars

CONWOOD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was enforced. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty order the assessee preferred the appeal before the first appellate authority, however Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation without dealing with the merits of the case, treating the same

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde 3 dated 21.09.2018 ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but ; 01.10.2018 ; 10.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 but same remain unattended same remain unattended. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer hereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act proposing

GUNWANT SOHANLAL KHERODIYA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kalyan Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya Plot No.30, Office No.101, 504, A3, Vs. Jeevandeep Apartment, Swami Devprakash Garden, Sai Section Ambernath-421501 Opp Sibu Palace, Ambarnath, Thane 421501 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agepk2846E

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 4th May, 2018, by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kalyan (the Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya; A.Y. 14-15 learned Assessing Officer) levying the penalty of ₹6,52,990/-, was confirmed. 02. Assessee is in appeal before us, raising following grounds:- “On being aggrieved by the order