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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following judgments: CIT v. S. S. Suri (2005) 279 ITR 276 CIT v. Zoom Communication

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following judgments: CIT v. S. S. Suri (2005) 279 ITR 276 CIT v. Zoom Communication

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

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

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

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Penalty U/s. 271(1) (c) cannot be levied and assessee pleads that there is neither "Concealment' nor 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' by him. The assessee also relies on following decisions of various High Courts to put weight that he has not concealed the Income. Judicial Pronouncements: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed in the following decisions - • CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC). ITA No 380 of 2015 • CIT vs Samson Perinchery (SLP)(392 ITR 4) (BOM) • CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar) p) The final penalty is imposed by invoking Explanation 1 for furnishing inaccurate particulars

GTL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 203/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1864/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14) स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 121/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.588/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in abeyance till the date of next hearing. In view of the above, you are requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the time the final order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai.” 7. The assessee filed letter dated 18.03.2019 containing the directions of ITAT, which was filed before

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of maximum and minimum penalty that can be levied is calculated as under:- Income Rs. 12,16,214/- 9 I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 ought to be evaded Tax Rs. 81,387/- thereon Minimum 100% 81,387/- Penalty Maximum 300% 2,44,161/- Penalty “ 7.2 Thus, while levying penalty u/s

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of maximum and minimum penalty that can be levied is calculated as under:- Income Rs. 12,16,214/- 9 I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 ought to be evaded Tax Rs. 81,387/- thereon Minimum 100% 81,387/- Penalty Maximum 300% 2,44,161/- Penalty “ 7.2 Thus, while levying penalty u/s

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on account of long term capital gain offered by the assessee on structured product assessee does not violate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd 2010 322 ITR 158 SC wherein it has been clearly held that everything would

SHIVKUMAR DEVIDUTT SARAF HUF,PUNE vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2010 and 4.12.2013 is bad in law inasmuch as neither of these two notices specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, and consequently, the impugned penalty order is also bad in law. The appellant, therefore, prays that

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 271(1)(c). 1.3.2 I find that appellant had filed the return of income on for AY 2005- 06 on 21.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.5,76,54,770/- alongwith Tax Audit Report and audited financial statements. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 31.10.2006 and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014

SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Smartstream Technologies Dcit 8(3), India Pvt. Ltd. Aver Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. B-13, Mumbai-400020. Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. Pan: Aaacq2086M (Appellant) (Respondent)

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, [CIT(A)] Mumbai dated 27.08.2014 for Assessment Year 2008-09, which in turn arises from the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) under section

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

254 of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2007, wherein the loss was determined at `28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

254 of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2007, wherein the loss was determined at `28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief

ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

254 of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2007, wherein the loss was determined at `28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief

SAROJ ANIL STEEL P.LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), THANE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant para of the AO’s penalty order is extracted below:_ 5. Considering the facts of the case, the explanation of the assessee was not found to be acceptable on the following grounds:- • Rather than furnishing the explanation on merits, the assessee just

VIREN VINI AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR- 84, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Viren Vini Ahuja Acit, Cc-8(4), 1, Neelkanth Road No.6, Mumbai. Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aacpa4809M (Appellant) (Respondent)

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the different order of ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai dated 26.10.2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner

VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

254(Mum) held that when assessee furnished full details and particulars of its income and assessee was under bonafide belief regarding allowability of short term capital loss on sale of securities in terms of provisions of section 94(7), the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Walter Saldhana