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

2. Without prejudice, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that penalty cannot be levied when income is determined on estimate basis.” The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who 03. filed his return

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

2. Without prejudice, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that penalty cannot be levied when income is determined on estimate basis.” The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who 03. filed his return

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

253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not 273B of the Act. A cause which

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

2. The CIT erred in not deciding the ground of appeal as the AO erred in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifiying the charge for which penalty was levied. “The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the impugned

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

2. The CIT erred in not deciding the ground of appeal as the AO erred in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifiying the charge for which penalty was levied. “The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the impugned

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

253 or an appeal to\nthe High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under\nsection 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or\nenhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe

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

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

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls. 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned order, the penalty has been levied

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)(1), Mumbai has erred in issuing Notice u/s.\n148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which in violation of Provisions of Sec.\n151A r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. The Order passed by the Learned Income-tax Officer, National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 143(3) of the Act\nread with 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)

253 ( Bombay) held that where Assessing Officer clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, non-striking of irrelevant matter would render the notice defective and such defective notice vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case, we find that in assessment order the Assessing Officer

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

2. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were passed against the co-operative society dated 29.09.2014 levying a penalty of Rs. 22,68,409/- and Rs. 8,89,073/- respectively, against which appeals were preferred before CIT (Appeals). 3. Subsequently, the Co-operative society received an order of CIT (Appeals

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

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-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

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

2. "Whether on the facts and m the circumstances j of the ease and in law, the Ld CIT(A), has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was levied for furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income by the Assesses Society , when the total

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

2. "Whether on the facts and m the circumstances j of the ease and in law, the Ld CIT(A), has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was levied for furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income by the Assesses Society , when the total

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

2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings 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