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 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

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 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

37,586/- . Persuant to search u/s 132(1), notices u/s. 153A dated 08.10.2007 were issued by the AO and served on the assessee. The assessee in response thereof to the notice u/s 153A filed return of income on 19.06.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 3,81,78,610/- . During the course of assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A r.w.s

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

Section 271(1)(c) for assessee having furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealing particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , the assessee was asked to explain why the penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) and the assessee in nutshell submitted as under: “i) There is no doubt as regards

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

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

37,67,906/- in view of, inter alia, disallowance of entire lease rental expenses claimed as bogus and disallowance of notional interest @24% on loans advanced to various parties. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee partial relief. On further appeal by Revenue, the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 17.05.2006 restored the matter back to the file

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

37,67,906/- in view of, inter alia, disallowance of entire lease rental expenses claimed as bogus and disallowance of notional interest @24% on loans advanced to various parties. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee partial relief. On further appeal by Revenue, the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 17.05.2006 restored the matter back to the file

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

37,67,906/- in view of, inter alia, disallowance of entire lease rental expenses claimed as bogus and disallowance of notional interest @24% on loans advanced to various parties. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee partial relief. On further appeal by Revenue, the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 17.05.2006 restored the matter back to the file

AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

37,196/- Stock exchange expenses Rs. 22,190/- Demat charges Rs. 804/- Legal expenses Rs. 4,556/- Security transaction tax Rs. 6,221/- Office expenses Rs. 3,121/- Interest paid Rs. 13,758/- -------------------- Rs. 13,87,846/- =========== The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish the details of expenses

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

37,16,8757- Considering the facts of the case I am satisfied that minimum penalty of Rs. 79,05,625/- be levied in he case ofhe assessee.,1 therefore direct: the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 79,05,625/- by way of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

section 271(1) (c) in this case which is worked out as under: Tax sought to be evaded Rs.15,37,173/- Minimum penalty leviable u/s

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(l)(c) under which the alleged offence is held to have been committed, resulting in the levy of penalty being bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 9,37,365/- levied u/s

INDRANI SUNIL PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

37, Mumbai, confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2010–11. 2. Brief facts are, the assessee an individual filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year on 14th October 2010, 2 Mrs. Indrani Sunil Pillai declaring total income of ` 79,47,520. During