M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

271 , section section 271A, 22 [ section 271A section 271AA,] section 271AA 271B 23[, section 271BA section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section section 271D, section 271D section 271F, 27 271E, 26 [ 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 29 [ section 271G section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub (c) or clause

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271FA of the Act for delay in filing the A of the Act for delay in filing the statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, statement of foreign accounts transaction. For ready reference, section 271FA of the Act is reproduced as under: e Act is reproduced as under: “[Penalty

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

2. Mere reasons that "due to server issues on banking portal, the assessee could not pay his taxes and details would be furnished as soon as the banking site gets restored" will not be the sufficient cause to drop the penalty proceedings for non- compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) from time to time. During the course

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

2:- a) AO made addition u/s.68 of Act of Rs.1,85,00,000/- being opening balance payable to M/s. SCL as on 01.04.2011 on account of share of JV expenses which was paid by an associate concern M/s. DIPL on behalf of appellant during FY 2011-12. b) Payment of Rs.1,85,00,000/- to M/s. SCL was made

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below to submit that levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E

WEST COAST FINE FOODS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 44AB of the Act, by the specified date for the A.Y. 2017-18, despite the appellant having gross receipts of Rs. 212,51,06,142/-. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 271B is in order, and I find no infirmity in the same.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,07,19,852/-. Aggrieved Visen Industries Ltd. assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty by holding that “5.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee mentioned that it had submitted the details sought by the TPO on 02.04.2019 and also TPO had made TP adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee only

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 271B of the income tax act, 1961 as there was reasonable cause and circumstances beyond applicant's control for the said failure as explained above considering section 2738 of the act.” 7. We heard the ld DR and perused the material on record. The AO reopened the assessment for the reason that the turnover of the assessee as declared

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2\nITA No.4140,4141 & 4121/MUM/2023\nRavi Nirman Nigam Ltd., AY 2011-12 & 2010-11\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\"), dated 14.11.2019\nfor AY 2011-12.\nB. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056323762(1), dated 20.09.2023\npassed against the penalty order by the Joint Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Range 13(3), Mumbai, u/s. 271D of the Act, dated\n14.11.2019

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE -13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below to submit that levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E

RAVI NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below to submit that levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 7 Likhmaram, Mumbai. 7. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon'ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty taken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. In these cases, the quantum proceedings were completed

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty taken as the relevant date as far as the section 275(1)(c) of the Act is concerned. In these cases, the quantum proceedings were completed

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), UNIT 7 , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2. The CIT(A) further erred in confirming the penalty on conjecture and surmise and without appreciating facts of the Appellant's case. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. The Appellant has not committed any default much less a deliberate default so as to attract penalty under section 272A

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid\njudgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty\nproceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be\ntaken as the relevant date as far as the section