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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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

32. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that where there is confusion in recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings or issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act or levy of penalty, on the limb for which no satisfaction was recorded and no penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order, then the penalty

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that under Rule 8D particular method of computation has been prescribed for computation of the disallowance which itself does not make assessee liable for filing inaccurate particulars of the income. All the facts in respect of claim of disallowance u/s 14A were duly available on record and AO has not pointed

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that\nunder Rule 8D particular method of computation has been\nprescribed for computation of the disallowance which itself does not\nmake assessee liable for filing inaccurate particulars of the income.\nAll the facts in respect of claim of disallowance u/s 14A were duly\navailable on record and AO has not pointed

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO is hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.” 8. To challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the assessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO is hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.” 8. To challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the assessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO is hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.” 8. To challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the assessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

271 , section section 271A, 22 [ section 271A section 271AA,] section 271AA 271B 23[, section 271BA section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section section 271D, section 271D section 271F, 27 271E, 26 [ 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 29 [ section 271G section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub (c) or clause

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

RAJESH B, JAIN AS LEGAL OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed.”\n8.\nTo challenge the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), which as per the\nassessee, was not justified and tenable in the eyes

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

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

32 of the Act. c. Attention is invited that depreciation is timing cost, claimed over the life of the asset and irrespective of the rate at which it has been claimed would even out as the claim of excess depreciation in earlier year would result in lower claim in later years and/or vice versa. Considering the same any excess claim