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

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

2. Appellant company finally would like to add that in the complex world of taxation, there is human probability that mistakes might occur. There are legal remedies within the Act itself in the form of section 154 of the Act which allows an appellant to correct its mistakes. The fact that the rectification is allowed within a period

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

2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : on the basis of assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) by making addition of Rs.70,90,29,837/- by way of reducing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition was not sustainable. It was held by Ld CIT(A) that the notice issued for imposing penalty was not valid notice because it has mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income despite the fact that AO has initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

2 ITA Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025/AYs.2009-10 & 2010-11 Chetan Pravin Chitalia furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ? 6. Whether on the facts

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

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0. In the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np. In the case

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0. In the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np. In the case

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI, MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case

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

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case

SHRIVALLABH PITTE INDUSTRIES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case