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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 has to be held as void-ab-initio. I, therefore, overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the penalty. The additional grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.07.2022, passed by the CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR 2,85,23,354/- under Section

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

2. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason the Assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, that is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. 3. In order to expose the Assessee to the penalty, unless

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

274 rws 271 (1) (c) of the Act does not come to rescue of the assessee. Hence, Ground No 1 is dismissed. 017. However in Ground no 2 assessee has also raised an issue that when the addition is sustained based on estimates penalty u/s 271 (1) c) is not sustainable. On similar facts, she relied up on coordinate bench

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

274 rws 271 (1) (c) of the Act does not come to rescue of the assessee. Hence, Ground No 1 is dismissed. 017. However in Ground no 2 assessee has also raised an issue that when the addition is sustained based on estimates penalty u/s 271 (1) c) is not sustainable. On similar facts, she relied up on coordinate bench

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

2. The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/- u/s erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

2. The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/- u/s erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls.274 read with Section\n271(1)(c) issued on 27/12/2011 for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome. Further, as per para 13 of the impugned order, the penalty has been levied by the AO\nfor

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

2. The CIT erred in not deciding the ground of appeal as the AO erred in levying the penalty 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

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

2. The CIT erred in not deciding the ground of appeal as the AO erred in levying the penalty 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

FABRIKANT TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2007–08. Fabrikant Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Fair Opportunity of being heard is not given: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner

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

2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated by notice uls. 274 read with Section

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

2 v. Gruh Finance Ltd. [2018] 100 taxmann.com 104 (SC). Thus, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable in respect of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance u/s.14A for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the AO is deleted.” 8.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant

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

section 271(1)(c)\nunder which the penalty was initiated.\n10.\nTo substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR\ndrew our attention to the copy of notice u/s 274 r. w. s. 271(1)(c) issued on\n21.03.2016, placed at assessee's paper book (APB) page 1, demonstrating that\nthe said notice was issued under a fixed template / prototype

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

section 271(1)(c)\nunder which the penalty was initiated.\n10.\nTo substantiate / support / corroborate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR\ndrew our attention to the copy of notice u/s 274 r. w. s. 271(1)(c) issued on\n21.03.2016, placed at assessee's paper book (APB) page 1, demonstrating that\nthe said notice was issued under a fixed template / prototype