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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain fact that the Ld. AO did not "strike off the irrelevant portion and even the Assessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact that the Ld. AO did not \"strike off the irrelevant portion and even the\nAssessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain fact that the Ld. AO did not "strike off the irrelevant portion and even the Assessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain fact that the Ld. AO did not "strike off the irrelevant portion and even the Assessment Order did not specify the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has stated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty proceedings u/s

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee in its raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: appeal are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee in its raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: appeal are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifiying the charge for which penalty was levied. “The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the impugned penalty without specifying the charge for which penalty under section

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifiying the charge for which penalty was levied. “The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the impugned penalty without specifying the charge for which penalty under section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section 2 of section\n270 of the Act as in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer\nhas made disallowance out of cash expenses and no books of\naccounts have been rejected invoking section 145(3) of the Act. As\nregards the penalty

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act and particularly in view of clause of sub-section 2 of section\n270 of the Act as in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer\nhas made disallowance out of cash expenses and no books of\naccounts have been rejected invoking section 145(3) of the Act. As\nregards the penalty

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section