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

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s

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

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s

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

b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, before the assessment\nproceedings were concluded.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty u/s

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

B. We may at the outset refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) wherein this precise question was considered and answered. The said question reads as under: 1. If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found

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

271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original return, penalty levied under section\n271(1)(c) was justified.\nHon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the above case.\n9.9

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

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 levied

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found

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

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 levied

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations