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

DY CIT CC 2 (3), MUMBAI vs. MS PREITY ZINTA , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

u/s. 271(1)(c) is quashed.” 8. Against the above order Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has filed cross objection. Since the cross objection challenges the jurisdiction we address the same first. The grounds raised in this regard may be repeated here for the sake of clarity :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

section 14A and addition towards notional income from house property and disallowance u/s. 14A for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at the disallowance/addition made in the Assessment Orders. According to the Learned Commissioner of Income Jayesh V. Sheth Tax the Assessing Officer should have initiated

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

section 14A and addition towards notional income from house property and disallowance u/s. 14A for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at the disallowance/addition made in the Assessment Orders. According to the Learned Commissioner of Income Jayesh V. Sheth Tax the Assessing Officer should have initiated

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

section 14A and addition towards notional income from house property and disallowance u/s. 14A for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at the disallowance/addition made in the Assessment Orders. According to the Learned Commissioner of Income Jayesh V. Sheth Tax the Assessing Officer should have initiated

HITESH JAYANTILAL MEHTA(HUF),KALBADEVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 271(1)(c) was time barred by period of limitation as mentioned under section 275(1)(a) and therefore is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating that the addition as made purely on estimation basis and therefore penalty could

HUHTAMAKI FOOD SERVICES PACKAGING INDIA P LTD (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. VALPACK SOLUTIONS P LTD),THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhuhtamaki Foodservice Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As ‘M/S. Valpack Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), 54/B, Hissa No.3A, Jangid Commercial Point S No.54 B Hissa No.3A Jangid C, Vadpe B.O. ............... Appellant Dhamangaon, Thane – 421302 Pan : Aaecv1431D V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Mumbai

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue is not justifiable, and the same is accordingly deleted. 5 9. The next issue that arises for our consideration pertains to the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of a foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining

M/S APACE REALTY ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KALYAN

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

u/s 271AA therefore, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 16. Against the above order assessee has filed this appeal. 17. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has summarized his submission as under:- “It is submitted that penalty under section 271AA was initiated on the ground of failure

SHRI RAJENDRA P. JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DYCIT, CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 190 To 192/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14 & 2014-15) Rajendra P.Jain Dcit,Cc-1(3) Vs. A-1605, Samarpan 905, 9Th Floor Exotica, Off.Dattapada Old Cgo Building Road, Behind Metro Mall, Prathishta Bhawan Borivali(E) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Abhpj0579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, considering the overall facts of the case. The levy of penalty/s. 271(1)(c) is confirmed only on amount of addition of Rs. 1,70,922/-. The AO is directed to work our quantum of penalty accordingly.” 4. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. POWERICA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendr Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazdcit (Large Taxpayer Unit)-1 M/S. Powerica Ltd. World Trade Centre, Centre-1 9Th Floor, Bakhtawar Vs. 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Nariman Point Mumbai 400005 Mumbai 400021 Pan - Aaacp3812E Appellant Respondent

u/s. 115JB of I.T. Act, 1961. In nutshell, assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 3.1 It was brought to the notice of the Bench by both the learned A.R. for the assessee and learned D.R. that the learned CIT(A) in the decision cited above relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nalwa Sons

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. CENTAUR MERCHANTILE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

u/s. 271(1)(c). Moreover, no stay has been granted by any higher Court on the operation of the orders of the Tribunal in the said cases of M/s. Kanakia Hospitality P. Ltd. and M/s. Sarang Property Developers P. Ltd. and hence, the said decisions are binding on the undersigned. Therefore, judicial discipline requires that the decision

SHORLINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT- CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. In identical situation, Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (supra) has held as under:- 3 Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. We have already discussed what constitutes the ratio decidendi or case holding and what it takes to b a precedent. Now, we will see what

NUSRAT MUSTAFA RASIWALA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner Of 2/5, Ai Hasnat Chs Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South Road, 10Th Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jvpd, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabpr1985J

Section 50C of the IT Act resulting taxable LTCG at Rs.21,26,505/- .The AO has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) of the IT Act against the above addition of long term capital gain." 4. The CIT after discussing the facts and legal position, finally noted that the matter should have been referred to the DVO u/s

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 7 Likhmaram, Mumbai. 7. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon'ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

ITO 6 (3)(4), MUMBAI vs. KHERAJ ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, 6(3)(4), M/S Kheraj Electricals R. No. 524, 5Th Floor, Industries Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11Bc, Old Anjirwadi, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Dr. Mascrenhas Road, Mumbai - 400010 Pan: Aabck1412E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Marlon Rego (Ar ) Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/12/2019

364/-. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai to the effect that the appellant company had obtained accommodation entries from hawala operator M/s Arihant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Enterprises amounting to Rs. 8,16,671/- during year

ASST CIT CC 43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 263 setting aside the Assessment Order without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Without prejudice to above ground, IV. 1. The CIT-(Central) erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing officer and directing him to reframe the assessment in accordance with

JUMBO TECHNO SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6802/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Acit-3(3) Jumbo Techno Services Ltd. 171, C Wing, Mittal Court Aaykar Bhawan Nariman Point M.K.Road Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aabcj8752C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Aakash Marthak Assessee By Department By Shri S.N.Kabra Date Of Hearing 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2022

u/s. 271(1)(c) on an addition of Rs. 3 lacs being interest not offered to tax. In appeal before the ld.CIT(A), assessee challenged the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits. On the issue of jurisdiction, it was challenged that no specific charge was specified in the notice of penalty. However, ld.CIT(A) referred to ITAT Mumbai