ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure

SHAH JAIN ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 153A read with section 143(3), which lacks initiation itself. The penalty which has been levied on the basis of the second assessment order, is not sustainable in law, for the reasons that firstly, there is no initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, and secondly, there is to be prima facie satisfaction in the assessment order

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

ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EXTRACTION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sktijit Dey() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

264. Therefore, he opined that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and asked as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted that there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section

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

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that