ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

253 (Bom.)], the Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT penalty was unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act was vague and failed to 271(1)(c) read with section

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

253 (Bom.)], the Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT penalty was unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section unsustainable ab initio as the notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act was vague and failed to 271(1)(c) read with section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty in the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act started with the judgment of hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 0565 (Kar.), wherein it was held P a g e | 8 ITA No. 415, 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 Panther

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty in the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act started with the judgment of hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 0565 (Kar.), wherein it was held P a g e | 8 ITA No. 415, 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 Panther

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

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

u/s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act. It would be useful to reproduce the contents of the said notice as under:\n\"NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX АСТ, 1961,\nPAN: AAACT2152P\nOffice of the\nAsst. Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle 40, Room no 653\nAayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor\nM.K. Road, Mumbai

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

253 (Bombay)/[2021] 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay) wherein in answer to question no.1, it held as under:- “Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate

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

253 (Bombay)/[2021] 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay) wherein in answer to question no.1, it held as under:- “Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate

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

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

1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed:\n(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter\nof an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or\nan appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the\nfinancial year in upholding

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

1) of section 139 or by the provisos to that sub or by the provisos to that sub-section, fails to furnish section, fails to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment such return before the end of the relevant assessment such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer may direct that

THE RUBY MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) was to be deleted. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming levy of penalty, ignoring the fact that there was no mens rea or intention or deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to furnish

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls.274 read\nwith Section 271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned\norder, the penalty has been levied by the AO for concealment of income.\n6.2 Before me, the AR of the appellant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) dated\n27.12.2007 of the Act issued was defective as particular limb i.e.\nconcealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the\nincome was not stricken off by the Assessing Officer while issuing\nnotice for initiation of penalty, relying on the decision of the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan Shaikh

ITO-23(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CHETAK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

253) vide order dt. 11.3.2021. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:- “179. Besides, the prima facie opinion in the assessment order need not always translate into actual penalty proceedings. These proceedings, in fact, commence with the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. Again, whether this prima facie opinion is sufficient to inform the assessee

CHETAK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

253) vide order dt. 11.3.2021. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:- “179. Besides, the prima facie opinion in the assessment order need not always translate into actual penalty proceedings. These proceedings, in fact, commence with the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. Again, whether this prima facie opinion is sufficient to inform the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls.274 read\nwith Section 271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned\norder, the penalty has been levied by the AO for concealment of income.\n6.2 Before me, the AR of the appellant

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

u/s 274 read with Sec. 271(1)(c) dated 23.12.2019 as referred above in this order without specifying whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. With the assistance of learned representative, we have gone through the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 23.02.2019 the relevant part

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

253 (Bombay), wherein the relevant Para of the head note is reproduced as under:- “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1