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

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 )-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. 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

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

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s.\n45, (refer Schedule 3). Cost of acquisition for the same is adopted as Nil in\naccordance with Section 55(2).\"\n10.3 Further, the assessee referred to paper book page 186, which\nis note No. 5 to Schedule 22 of the balance sheet. The assessee also\nexplained the nature of the payment received during the course of\nthe assessment proceedings

LORDS INN HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI WEST vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), NARIMAN POINT

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

276C. 10. In view of the above, assessee has misreported its income as discussed above. Therefore, assessee's case squarely falls within the ambit of section 270A of the Act which is on the same footing as erstwhile sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore I am satisfied that the assessee's case is a fit case, where

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and rejected the assessee’s contention that the same was an afterthought. The lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s contention that it had not discharged its initial onus to establish the correctness of the claim made by it in the return of income and that

KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP D MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

sections was for providing remedy for loss of Revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Penalty u/s 271

BRIZO REALITY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbrizo Reality Company Private Vs. Nfac Delhi Limited Maharashtra. 802 B, Grande Palladium, Near Mercedez Showroom, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Maharashtra – 400 098 Pan: Aaecb5443M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an Brizo Reality Company Private Limited essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Ld. AO held that assessee has deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271

MAN EQUIPMENT CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 37, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Man Equipment Co. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-37 Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Mumbai 69, Svp Road, Dongri, Mumbai-400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm9716E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Section 271(1)(c) is to provide remedy for loss of revenue and that such a penalty is a civil rather than a quasi-criminal liability and, therefore, wilful or conscious concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MICRO PLANTAE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2004-05)

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.03.2014 wherein penalty was levied amounting to Rs. 18,63,414/- on the additions/disallowance made in the assessment order The Ld CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and tax effect was less than the monetary limit as prescribed in CBDT circular no 17/2019 dated