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

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

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

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

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

5. In ground no.2 of the CO for both the years, the assessee has contended that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground wherein it was pointed out that the penalty order was liable to be quashed as the AO while issuing show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not strike

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

5. In ground no.2 of the CO for both the years, the assessee has contended that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground wherein it was pointed out that the penalty order was liable to be quashed as the AO while issuing show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not strike

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

5) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the\nappellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal,\nif the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that the omission of that ground from\nthe form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable.\n(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing

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

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

5 and 6, respectively, of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 passed us. 143(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

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

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

5 and 6,\nrespectively, of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 passed us.143(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

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

5 lakhs for purchase of flat, was fully\ndisclosed in the audited accounts as well as in the return of\nincome originally filed. It was emphasized that the scrutiny\nassessment under section 143(3) dated 28.12.2017 was\ncompleted after due verification of the said claim and the loss was\nallowed to be carried forward. It was further contended that while

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 and 6,\nrespectively, of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 passed us.143(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

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

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

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) - 33 for AY 2010-11 dated

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 and 6,\nrespectively, of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 passed us.143(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