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

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

penalty proceedings 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

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

263 or section 264 is passed;\nProvided further that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 shall apply in\nrespect of the order imposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under this sub-\nsection.\n(2) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their\namendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

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

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

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

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(1

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and/or delete any of the above grounds before or during the course of hearing of appeal." 3. Ground of appeal nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and dealt with other grounds of appeal. 4. In ground of appeal

H.K.ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and/or delete any of the above grounds before or during the course of hearing of appeal." 3. Ground of appeal nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and dealt with other grounds of appeal. 4. In ground of appeal

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and/or delete any of the above grounds before or during the course of hearing of appeal." 3. Ground of appeal nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and dealt with other grounds of appeal. 4. In ground of appeal