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

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

251 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therein, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer, while issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c), to expressly invoke Explanation 1(B) appended to the provision. It is however relevant to note that Explanation 1(B) merely adverts to a case of failure of an assessee to substantiate

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

251 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therein, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer, while issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c), to expressly invoke Explanation 1(B) appended to the provision. It is however relevant to note that Explanation 1(B) merely adverts to a case of failure of an assessee to substantiate

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

251 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therein, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer, while issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c), to expressly invoke Explanation 1(B) appended to the provision. It is however relevant to note that Explanation 1(B) merely adverts to a case of failure of an assessee to substantiate

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

251 ITR 99 (SC)/[200t] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(B) of the section

GTL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 203/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1864/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14) स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 121/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.588/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14)

251(1) of the Act proposing disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on pro-rata basis by computing the proportionate interest of ₹ 213.91 crores on the amount of total investment of the assessee amounting to ₹ 2639.75 crores out of 3 & SAs No. 203 & 121/Mum/2019 the interest free funds of ₹ 1296.65 crores, being the aggregate of share capital

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In addition to these two situations, penalty can also be imposed, inter alia, when assessee is deemed to have concealed particulars of income under Explanations to sec. 271(1)(c). In this background

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In addition to these two situations, penalty can also be imposed, inter alia, when assessee is deemed to have concealed particulars of income under Explanations to sec. 271(1)(c). In this background

MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO,KALYAN vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In addition to these two situations, penalty can also be imposed, inter alia, when assessee is deemed to have concealed particulars of income under Explanations to sec. 271(1)(c). In this background

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

251 ITR 0099, the Apex Court held that "The Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is a part of s. 271. When the ITO or the AAC issues to an assessee a notice under s. 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

251 ITR 0099, the Apex Court held that "The Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is a part of s. 271. When the ITO or the AAC issues to an assessee a notice under s. 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

251 ITR 99] (SC) held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars of its income in terms of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he opined that it is a fit case for levying penalty u/s

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

251(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the appeal by raising the above grounds. Ground No. 1. 5. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in enhancing penalty to Rs.36,54,200/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 being

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt