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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

3. It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty orders for both the above assessment years on the observations and findings that the ITAT had restored the issue to the file of the AO for deciding afresh levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in light of its observation made in the order u/s

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

3. It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty orders for both the above assessment years on the observations and findings that the ITAT had restored the issue to the file of the AO for deciding afresh levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in light of its observation made in the order u/s

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

3), 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has 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

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 of the act which in fact would have certainly\nbeen received bv the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner bv the end of\nDecember .2017. The order imposing penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the act on\n31.07.20.18 bv the Ld. AO after receiving ITAT order certainly latest bv December\n2017 stands barred bv limitation as per section 275d

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

u/s.\n271(1)( c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs. 37,29,845/- and that too\nwithout appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.\n7. The Appellant reserves the right to add, delete or amend the above\ngrounds of appeal.\n15. During the course of hearing before us, the learned\nAuthorised Representative (AR) reiterated the factual matrix

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

253 ITR 630 P&H). In the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied where the Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith. In the case of K. R. Chinni Krishna

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

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

3) road with Section 254\nof the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls\n271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment\nof income. The AO has stated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

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

3) road with Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has stated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty proceedings u/s 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

3) read with section 147 of the Act and theassessee was assessed at a total income of Rs.7,93,74,420/-. The penalty was initiated and levied at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,82,08,045/-. The penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied amount

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

3) read with section 147 of the Act and theassessee was assessed at a total income of Rs.7,93,74,420/-. The penalty was initiated and levied at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,82,08,045/-. The penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied amount

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) road\nwith Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned\nthat the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has\nstated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

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

section 274 S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the notice initiating penalty is ambiguous in the absence of clear mention of the limb under which penalty is initiated, the notice is therefore invalid, and the penalty is unsustainable hence the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped.” 3. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s

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

section 274 S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the notice initiating penalty is ambiguous in the absence of clear mention of the limb under which penalty is initiated, the notice is therefore invalid, and the penalty is unsustainable hence the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped.” 3. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s

ASHWIN LILADHAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 ITR 216 (Gujarat HC)]. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed and confirmed by Id. A.O. & Id. CIT (Appeal) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.1,06,262/- is legally untenable