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 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

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 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

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 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

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 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

section 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 31.03.2002 without specifying the charge brought against the appellants that is, whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. I find from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act that the AO did not strike off one of the two limbs of penalty

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued for initiation of penalty proceedings striking off the irrelevant point was not done inadvertently.” Thus, there is a clear admission by the assessing officer that the show cause notice issued under section

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, cannot be levied with reference to additions/ disallowances made to total income computed under normal provisions of the Act. Hence, we direct the Ld. AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act

MUNIR M. KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is incorrect, because, the Ld. AO has arrived at clear satisfaction in the assessment proceedings before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Insofar as, another arguments of the assessee that penalty can be levied u/s 271AAA, but not under section

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the said cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account on the legal grounds that the notice dated 28.12.2011 issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274

AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

section 271(1)(c) as the two charges, i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two different connotations. The issue of notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) goes to the root of the matter of assuming jurisdiction to levy penalty

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

penalty under the other limb of section 271(1)(c). This fact is clear from the findings of the Tribunal which are reproduced as under: - "We do not find any infirmity in the notice dated 20-02-2014 issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 271(l)(c) of the Act.” 7. In this view of the matter and consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, we are of the considered view that the AO has initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by issuing show cause notice u/s 274

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , dated 31-12-2009 was issued by the AO which is placed in paper book/page 56. 4. During the course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , the AO observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 9,99,96,772/- u/s 80IC of the 1961 Act. The deduction

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) Office of the PEN/32/PG.31

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) Office of the PEN/32/PG.31

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) Office of the PEN/32/PG.31

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty under the other limb of section 271(1)(c). This fact is clear from the findings of the Tribunal which are reproduced as under: - “We do not find any infirmity in the notice dated 20-02-2014 issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty under the other limb of section 271(1)(c). This fact is clear from the findings of the Tribunal which are reproduced as under: - “We do not find any infirmity in the notice dated 20-02-2014 issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274