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

40 lacs, so Section 44AD is not applicable, nonetheless the A.O. has inspired with the provision of Section 44AD and made the addition by estimating the net profit rate @ 8%. Rejection of the books of account allowed the A.O. to make the addition on estimate basis. When the addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271

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

40 lacs, so Section 44AD is not applicable, nonetheless the A.O. has inspired with the provision of Section 44AD and made the addition by estimating the net profit rate @ 8%. Rejection of the books of account allowed the A.O. to make the addition on estimate basis. When the addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271

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

u/s 115JB, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to sustain the order of the Tribunal, though on different grounds. Therefore, while the reasoning and approach of the Tribunal is not tenable, for the reasons disclosed above

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various\nadditions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\nAfter receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer\nissued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty might\nnot

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

40. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961 of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- is accordingly levied. The assessee is directed to make payment of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- by way of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity

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

40. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961 of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- is accordingly levied. The assessee is directed to make payment of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- by way of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity

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

40. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961 of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- is accordingly levied. The assessee is directed to make payment of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- by way of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity

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

40,06,935/-.\n39.In view of the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the case is fit for penalty at\nRs. 1,13,35,645/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded.\n40. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961 of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- is\naccordingly levied. The assessee is directed

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

40,06,935/-.\n39.In view of the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the case is fit for penalty at\nRs. 1,13,35,645/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded.\n40. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961 of Rs. 1,13,35,645/- is\naccordingly levied. The assessee is directed