SAROJ ANIL STEEL P.LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), THANE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, the AO was right in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is extracted below:- 5. I have carefully considered (he facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment orders as well as penalty order, submissions

NADEEM ABDUL SATTAR LAKDWALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.773/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Nadeem Abdul Sattar Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Lakdawala, Income Tax- Central V. B-201, Leo Apartment, Circle 36, 24 Th Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Kohinoor Chs, Mumbai. Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapl4893N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act without considering the facts which led to the delay in filing of his return of income, and arrived at the conclusion that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. It was submitted that the A.O. has wrongly relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Mohamed Abdul Khadir

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. DHAVAL D SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Dhaval D. Shah Income, Central Smag House, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle2(3), Old Cgo Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Parle (W) Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400010 Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 08/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhaval D. Shah Dy. Commissioner Of Smag House, 1St Floor, Income, Central Vs. Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Circle2(3), Old Cgo Parle (W) Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400010 Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

penalty order passed under section 27l(l)(c) of the Act is bad in law due to non-application of mind which is evident from the notice u/s 274 read with section 271

POSCO MAHARASHTRA STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiposco Maharashtra Steel Vs. Dcit, Panvel Circle Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan 1St Floor, Head Office Mumbai-400 020 Plot No.C-1 Vile Bhagad Industrial Area Mangaon, Raigad Maharashtra-412 107

u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T Act. Considering the facts of the case and provisions of explaination-1 to Section 27l(1)(c), I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars leading concealment of income. The minimum and maximum penalty

ITO11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6250/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-11(2)(1) M/S. S.K. Office Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Flat No. 19, 3Rd Floor Room No.425, Aaykar Bhavan M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Lalita Society, Gokhale Road Vs. Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 049. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-1006-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar- Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala-Ld. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ : 08/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-

u/s 274 was issued for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas penalty has been levied for concealment of income under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) which was impermissible in law since both the allegations carry different connotations. Reliance was placed on various binding judicial precedents to support the aforesaid submissions. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration

ITO 28(2)(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S MAURYA TILES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4502/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(2)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Maurya Tiles 3Rd Floor, R. No.311 Tower Shop No. 4 & 5 Plot No.575- Vs. No.5 Vashi Rly Station A Vashi Belapur Road Complex Vashi Navi Shirvane Nerul Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm6694H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case An In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 43,922/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus

27l(l)(c) of the Act on 20-04-2017 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealing the particulars of income by way of bogus claim of expenditure, levying a minimum leviable penalty of Rs. 43,922/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 6.2 The appellant has contended that the purchases made

DELUX POLYMERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.165/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ M/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-33 Ltd. 11/12 Raghuvanshi Mill (Passing The Original Order) Vs. Compound, Lower Parel, Dy. Cit (C.C.5(3) Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd4132B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Salil Kapoor Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Upheld.

penalty has been initiated vide notice under section 271(l)(c)/274 of the Aft without any specific charge, hence, the said notice and the order passed under section 27l(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction." The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of 3. income

M/S.PRARTHANA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatham/S. Prarthana Enterprises Vs. Acit-19(1) 1St Room No.322, 3Rd Floor Floor, 345, Gomantak Maratha Samaj, V.P.Road, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Near Imperial Cinema Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aadfp8025H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

271(1)(c). 2. On the facts and in law, learned AO erred in levying penalty relying on both limbs of Section 27l(1)(c) without specifically invoking same in the notice u/s

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S UTV GLOBAL BRADCASTING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-16(1) M/S Utv Global Broadcasting Ltd. Room No. 439, (Now Known As M/S Disney Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Entertainment (India) Ltd. 7Th Floor, M.K. Marg Mumbai- Building No. 11, Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacu9044R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that explanation (1) of section 27l

WINSMILE INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit-8(3), 255, Sharma Estate, S. V. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Pan: Aaacw3470D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani (Ar’S) Revenue By : Ms. Mahua Sarkar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S. 253 Of Income Tax Act (,Act’) Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.02.2013 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 21.11.2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,530/-. Subsequently, The Action U/S 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out On 08.03.2010. & The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened. Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 20.10.2010. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee-Company Filed Revised Return Of Income On 12.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Included Rs. 45 Lakhs Which The Assessee Has Write Off In Its Books Of Account In Ay 2006-07, Thus The Penalty Proceeding Was Initiated Against The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 20,67,563/- Being Minimum Penalty On M/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

u/s 274 of the Act, if the penalty is levied for filing of inaccurate particular or for concealment of income. The AO has accepted the return of income without any addition. Ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) and further in case

ITO WD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KESAR PETROPRODUCTS LTD, RATNAGIRI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

u/s 271(1)© of the Act have been levied. 8. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted the penalty after observing as under:- “The facts of the case, the stand taken by the A.O. in the assessment order and the contentions of the appellant company during the appellate proceedings as well as the written submissions made are carefully considered

AF-TAAB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST.C.I.T. CIR.2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03)

u/s. 27l(l)(c), but the only issue is that if the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars and thereby concealed income then penalty is leviable otherwise not. Hence, it is to be examined whether the particulars filed by the assessee were inaccurate or not. Without dispute assessee claimed the loss in share trading as normal business loss and nowhere

THE HINDUSTAN CO-OP. BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT 13(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Hindustan Co- Acit-13(3), Aayakar Operative Bank Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. 4-A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai-400009 Pan No. Aabat4355R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravi Sawana, Ar Revenue By : Mr. D.G. Pansari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 2. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred In confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act The Hindustan Co-operative

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOOKER INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.535/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit (Cir)-6(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Booker India Pvt. Ltd. R.No. 563, 5Th Floor, No. 607, Trade Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb3571B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Aliasger Rampurawla & Shri Ravi Sawana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "Whether On (He Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Id Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.98,05,079/- & Failed To Appreciate That Penalty Has Been Levied On Account Of The A.Y.2009-10

27l(l)(c). In the case of Roshan Lal Madan vs ACIT (67 ITD 33} the Tribunal has incurred with this view. Mere disallowance of part of the expenses will not alter the bona- fide claim of the appellant, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1 (c) is to be imposed for such disallowance. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

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)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section

JT.CIT.,-8(1)(OSD), MUMBAI vs. CLEANTEC HOSPITALITY SERVICES PVT.LTD.(NOW KNOWN AS ISS INTERGREATED FACILITY SERVICES PVT.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy.Cit, Range-8(1), M/S Cleantec Hospitality Services Pvt. R. No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. (Now Known As Iss Integrated Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.), Godrej Mumbai-400020 Indl. Complex, Road No.4, Sir Phiroz Vs. Shah Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaaca8682K (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 27l(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), without appreciating that, the quantum addition has been confirmed by the Ld. C!T(A) himself on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish evidence to show that