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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under original return of income

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under original return of income

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under original return of income

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under original return of income

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under original return of income

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

35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned mentioned whereas whereas whereas order order order u/s u/s u/s 144 144 144 is is is dated dated dated 17.03.2016 and thus 17.03.2016 and thus, this appeal

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

35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned mentioned whereas whereas whereas order order order u/s u/s u/s 144 144 144 is is is dated dated dated 17.03.2016 and thus 17.03.2016 and thus, this appeal

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

u/s 271(1){c} read with section 274 of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and vide penalty order dated 19.06.2017, ultimately levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income but not for concealment of income, for which satisfaction was recorded and penalty proceedings were initiated and thus the penalty under consideration on this count

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

u/s 32AC of Rs.6,28,94,089/-, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) observing as under: “7.3.3.4 Penalty levied on disallowance of deduction of investment allowance u/s.32AC: Facts related to the investment allowance u/s.32AC are that during the year, the assessee had made investment in new assets amounting to Rs.7324,42,28,447/-on which the investment

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

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

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

35,215/- @ 15% on WDV of Rs.35,68,101/- as on 01.04.2012 related to capitalization of steel purchase in AY. 2003-04 was disallowed. Both the CIT(A) as well as ITAT upheld the disallowance on depreciation on steel purchase. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) on the issue was rightly initiated.\nThe AO referred to the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

35 taxmann 562(Jodhpur-Trib.) and other Benches of ITAT. So, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

35 taxmann 562(Jodhpur-Trib.) and other Benches of ITAT. So, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs.\n1,13,35,645/-.\n7.\nBeing dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty @ 100% of the total tax was imposed for Rs. 1,13,35,645/-. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid penalty order u/s