DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act observing that the same was levied on addition made on estimate basis ignoring the fact that the evidence uncovered during search or survey proceedings has evidentiary value and is considered true as per the provisions of section 292C

OPTIONS DEVELOPRS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CE CIR 22, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

292C of the Act which reads as under:- “292[(1)] Where any books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 24 M/s Options Developers & Builders 132 [or survey under section 133A

ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI vs. PRAKASH C. KANUGO, MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty (in answer to Q.11). Could it be therefore be said that the assessee had no occasion to aver with regard to the manner of deriving the income being disclosed? A company acts through the human agency of its management, which alone could depose qua the manner in which its undisclosed income stood earned/ derived, being rather in its exclusive

SHRI PANNALAL UKARAM PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4874/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Pannalal Ukaram Prajapati Dy. Commissioner Of Room No. 28, 4 Th Floor, Income Tax, Damodar Niwas, 32/34 C.P. Central Circle-2(4), 8Th बनाम/ Tank Road, Opp. Panjarpole, Floor, Cgo Building, M.K. Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Road, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aqipp7482K अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ars’ प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

292C of the Act, the assessee admitted the money found during the course of search the third party i.e. Chandrakant Gavade amounting to ₹79.50 lacs is unaccounted money and paid the tax accordingly. The assessee filed his return of income disclosing this money found during the course of search and seized amounting to ₹79.50 lacs. The assessment was completed

ACIT 25 (3), MUMBAI vs. PRAVIN VIRAM SATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

271(1)(c ) of the Act in the total sum of Rs 11,17,600/-. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee (penalty appeal) in ITA No. 5980/Mum/2018 for the Asst Year 2010-1 is hereby allowed. ITA No. 5506/Mum/2018 – Asst Year 2013-14 – Revenue Appeal 11. This appeal in ITA No.5506/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 arises

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH (THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

LATE SHRI AMITABH A. PAREKH( THROUGH L/R. JULIE A. PAREKH),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271(1)(c) for these years. The appeals raising common issues, were taken up for hearing, and were accordingly heard together. (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT Quantum Assessments 2. The assessments presently under appeal before us (as well as the corresponding penalty appeals) are consequent to a search action u/s

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271(1)(c) for these years. The appeals raising common issues, were taken up for hearing, and were accordingly heard together. (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT Quantum Assessments 2. The assessments presently under appeal before us (as well as the corresponding penalty appeals) are consequent to a search action u/s

CHANDRIKA TAPURIAH, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

271(1)(c) for these years. The appeals raising common issues, were taken up for hearing, and were accordingly heard together. Chandrika Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Quantum Assessments 2. The assessments presently under appeal before us (as well as the corresponding penalty appeals) are consequent to a search action u/s

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CC 10, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit Cc-10, 2Nd Floor, 12/14, Govardhan Aayakar Bhavan, Building Mumbai Parekh Street, Prarthana Samaj, Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aacca7661A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

u/s. 132(4) that the loans were given in cash. Therefore, I hold that the appellant accepted loans in cash in violation of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. 6.3.4 Now, I will see whether or not there was any reasonable cause for violation of the provisions of section 269SS. I find that neither in the course

HARSHAD R. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for deliberate concealment of such income were also initiated in the assessment order. 5. The assessee reiterated his submissions before the ld CITA. Among other submissions, it was specifically pleaded that the ld AO had made the addition on the footing that no contradictory evidence was produced by the assessee

SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books ITA No.6541 to 6546/Mum/2012 6 Smt. Sumanlata Bansal of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s

ITO-15(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRAVIR POLYMERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of the same.” 10. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed certain additional documents to substantiate his claim of loans as genuine. The list of relevant documents in the form

JCIT (OSD) 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SANJAY PARMAR, MUMBAI

In the result revenues appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhjcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400012. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.61/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Jcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400020. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2021 Order

Section 69B of the Act, the burden of proof is on assessee, however assessee fails to discharge his onus to provide the source of cash payment made towards booking/purchase of the flat. As assessee fails to substantiate the source of the cash payment of Rs.5.50/- crores towards booking/ purchase of flat at “One Avigna Park” developed by M/s Nish developers

M/S. KISHOR D NAIK (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

292C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.\n2. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the present appeal has been instituted with a delay\nof seventy-six (76) days. In support thereof, reliance has been\nplaced upon the affidavit sworn by Shri Ritesh, the accountant of\nthe assessee. It has been submitted that the delay occasioned