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 ()

4 percentile of ‘salary and wages salary and wages’ expenses and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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 ()

4 percentile of ‘salary and wages salary and wages’ expenses and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate and 10 percentile of administrative expenses on estimate basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing basis and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore there was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order or penalty order and the ground of the quantum addition or penalty order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore there was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order or penalty order and the ground of the quantum addition or penalty order

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

4 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta and therefore initiated separately, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 8. The AO thereafter issued a penalty notice dated 31.12.2016 u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for the limb of furnishing of particulars of income. 9. Thereafter the AO vide show cause notice

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

4. Notice, dated 31.03.2016, in respect of penalty proceedings was issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the „First Penalty Notice‟). However, since the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2016, the penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance. The CIT(A), vide order, dated

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

section 271(1)(c). [Para 9.1] In view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K C Builders (supra), the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is deleted. 7.3.3.7 The levy of penalty

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that to initiate or not to to initiate penalty proceedings initiate penalty proceedings iswithin the discretionary authorityand satisf ary authorityand satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and of the Assessing Officer

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

4 of section 271 of the Act with prospective effect, it is now a settled position that prior to 01-04-2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. 4. On further appeals

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

4), Bombay on 29th March, 2019, levying penalty of ₹357,170/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 05. This penalty order was challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty. Therefore, the assessee has filed his appeal. Similarly, in ITA No. 3555/Mum/2023, is also filed

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

4), Bombay on 29th March, 2019, levying penalty of ₹357,170/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 05. This penalty order was challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty. Therefore, the assessee has filed his appeal. Similarly, in ITA No. 3555/Mum/2023, is also filed

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

section 271(1)(c).\n[Para 9.1]\nIn view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' \nThus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of KC Builders (supra), the penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is\ndeleted.\n7.3.3.7 The levy