MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The total income sought to be evaded is Rs.1.91,184/-. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c): Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.59,076/- Minimum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.1

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The total income sought to be evaded is Rs.1.91,184/-. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c): Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.59,076/- Minimum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.1

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The total income sought to be evaded is Rs.1.91,184/-. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c): Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.59,076/- Minimum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.1

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2017-18dated 30.03.2022. From the facts of the case, it is ascertained that you had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The return was filed only after the notice u/s.148 was issued. In response thereto, you filed the return

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 to protect the interest of the revenue, the income earned from this HSBC account of Rs. 3,54,910/- during A Y 2002- 03 is added to the total income of the assessee, on protective basis. (Add: Rs. 3,54,910/-) Penalty proceedings u/s

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

263 of the Act on 07/06/2017 making addition of INR.3.98 Crores by disallowing the deduction claimed in respect of Provisions for Mines Reclamation Expenses and initiated penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty under Section

ANJALI NEERAJ HARDIKAR ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranjali Neeraj Hardikar Vs. Pcit (Central) E/3, Vibhawari Apartments, 1901, 19Th Floor, Air Sahwas Society, Lane No.1, India Bldg, Nariman Karve Nagar – 411052. Point, Maharashtra – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aafph0320K (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 263 to substitute his opinion in place of opinion of the Assessing Officer, particularly, when, no error has been committed on facts and in law, by the Ld. AO." 8. After having gone through the facts of the case, we noticed that penalty proceeds u/s 271

ASCOT REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act and any defect in the same has been held to be not curable defect. There is no iota of doubt that in the present case in hand there are discrepancy, where the ld. AO has initiated the penalty for concealment and even in the penalty order has mentioned that it was for the same

ASCOT REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act and any defect in the same has been held to be not curable defect. There is no iota of doubt that in the present case in hand there are discrepancy, where the ld. AO has initiated the penalty for concealment and even in the penalty order has mentioned that it was for the same

WEST COAST FINE FOODS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 44AB of the Act, by the specified date for the A.Y. 2017-18, despite the appellant having gross receipts of Rs. 212,51,06,142/-. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 271B is in order, and I find no infirmity in the same.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings / revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these