FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

27,329 out of total provision for year\nended March 2009 of Rs. 66,71,400) had in fact subsequently\nmaterialized, as corresponding bills were received, copies of which were\nalso submitted to the DRP and AO.\n2.3.3. Further, the learned AO did not also appreciate that the remaining\nportion of the provision for which bills were not received stood

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

ALKA ASHOK JAGTAP,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted.” 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the levy and confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts and deserves to be deleted in toto. The AR emphasised that the amount of Rs. 6,47,054/-, on which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. KANAKIA SPACES REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanakia Spaces Realty Room No. 420, Kautilya Bhawan, Private Limited Vs. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Plot No. 8, Vilco Centre, 3Rd Mumbai- 400051 Floor, Subhash Road, Opp Garware House, Vile Parle East, Mumbai- 400057 Pan No. Aaccc 4199 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shweta Vardhan : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2025 : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order

27,77,186/ , The additions were made on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 13,52,010/- and accommodation entry donation of purchases of Rs. 13,52,010/ accommodation entry donation of Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, The AO has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty

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)

section 271(1)(c), in the cases WHARE the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition is made of estimate basis? 7. The Tax- Effect involved in the instant case is Rs. 2,68,781/-, which is below the 'prescribed limit as per CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) amended