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

28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief. 2.2.3 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was taken

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

28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief. 2.2.3 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was taken

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

28,69,740/- in view of the assessee claiming bogus depreciation claim on certain bogus lease transactions. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously. On appeal the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 18.06.2008 allowed the assessee partial relief. 2.2.3 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was taken

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

28 8.09.2016 is in respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, thus respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act appeal filed on 27.04.2017 by the assessee is in respect of penalty

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

28 8.09.2016 is in respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, thus respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act respect of the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act appeal filed on 27.04.2017 by the assessee is in respect of penalty

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

28-03-2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 5935/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the appellate order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) for assessment year 2005-06, appellate proceedings

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

Section 27I(I)(c) o/the Act.” 11. The AO though considered the aforesaid reply of the Assessee, however, not being satisfied, rejected the same and by relying on various judgments, vide penalty order dated 19.06.2017 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.2,28

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 ()

28-06-2021 2 ITA 2138/Mum/2018 CO 215/Mum/2019 O R D E R Per : Saktijit Dey (JM): Captioned appeal and cross objection arise out of an order dated 30-01- 2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane, deleting penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the issues listed at (i) and (ii) in para 2.1 (supra) and upheld the levy of penalty on issues listed at S.Nos. (iii) and (iv) of para 2.1 (supra). 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-25, Mumbai dated 15.07.2014 for A.Y. 2006-07, the assessee has preferred

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, as the appellant had paid the tax on deemed income under the provision of section 115JB of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted.” 14. Our decision

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, as the appellant had paid the tax on deemed income under the provision of section 115JB of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted.” 14. Our decision

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, as the appellant had paid the tax on deemed income under the provision of section 115JB of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted.” 14. Our decision

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, as the appellant had paid the tax on deemed income under the provision of section 115JB of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted.” 14. Our decision

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the act, now assessee is objecting to the above action of the assessing officer. In the similar facts, the Coordinate Bench in the Third member case has held as under: 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am satisfied that the penalty was wrongly imposed and confirmed in all the four appeals under consideration

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

28,94,489/- ignoring the facts that the penalty was levied by the AO on the quantum disallowance confirmed during the appellate stage and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable as per I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting

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

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016