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 ()

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal against an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is order made under section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing

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 ()

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal against an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is order made under section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing

ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 has been issued to the assessee company. A copy of the said notice has been placed on record and the learned representative canvassed that the same has been issued by the Assessing Officer in a standard proforma, without striking out the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 has been issued to the assessee company. A copy of the said notice has been placed on record and the learned representative canvassed that the same has been issued by the Assessing Officer in a standard proforma, without striking out the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 has been issued to the assessee company. A copy of the said notice has been placed on record and the learned representative canvassed that the same has been issued by the Assessing Officer in a standard proforma, without striking out the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of disallowance of claim of excessive loss being provision for doubtful debts and loss on sale of fixed assets. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty shall not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response

PRINCE CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

u/s. 271(1)(c) Office of the PEN/32/PG.31 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax- i 3(1)(2) Room No. 218, 2'' floor, 2014-05 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 20. PAN: AAFCP8573K Date: 11-03-2015 To, The Principal Officer, M/S PRINCE CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., 1203, EMP 48, EVERSHINE HALLEY, THAKUR VILLAGE, KANDIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 101. Whereas in the course of proceeding

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) is invalid and bad in law.” 3.2.2 We have heard both parties on the issue of admission of the additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee in this appeal (supra). According to the learned A.R. of the assessee, these grounds were inadvertently omitted to be taken earlier and being purely legal grounds, prayed that

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 2441 where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

u/s 133A, it would automatically follow that income had been concealed in the return of income filed, the assessment whereof was completed on 28th March, 2013. The provisions of sub-section 1 of section 271 suggest that if the assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars coupled with absence and satisfactory explanation, that would per se make assessee liable to pay penalty. Concealment

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only