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

MITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT - CC - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A) is when the CIT(A) himself has made a new addition or disallowance leading to enhancement in the corresponding quantum order This is not the case here. Thus the argument of the appellant that penalty u/s 271E cannot under any circumstances be enhanced by a CIT(A), is grossly fallacious

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

u/s 142(1) of the Act vide dated 28-10-2022,22-12-2022, 10-01- 2023 and 25- 01-2023 for the A.Y 2015-16. Demand notice is attached herewith.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that though the first 4 notices were not responded

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under\nSection 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, по\nsuch penalty could be levied.\nThese appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.”\n8. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities\nbelow to submit that levy of penalty u/s

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

u/s 271 G of the IT Act levied by the TPO is confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed.” 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee though did not respond to the first two notices issued by the TPO subsequently responded to the notices and filed all the relevant details before the TPO. The ld. AR further submitted

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(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1) can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT"). Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

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(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1) can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT"). Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

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

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(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under\nsection 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1) can\nonly be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (\"the\nJoint CIT\"). Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the\nmatter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.\n3. A perusal of the order dated March

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

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

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under\nsection 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1) can\nonly be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (\"the\nJoint CIT\"). Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the\nmatter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.\n3. A perusal of the order dated March