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

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

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), the Id. CIT(A) directed the A.O to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Further aggrieved by the order of Id. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before ITAT. The Tribunal observed as follows: "We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through

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), the Id. CIT(A) directed the A.O to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Further aggrieved by the order of Id. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before ITAT. The Tribunal observed as follows: "We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through

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

271 of the IT Act. In the notice, the AO has scored off the phrase \"have concealed the particulars of your income\" and the charge intimated for initiation of penalty was \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income\". In subsequent notices, reference was made to notice dated 10.11.2020. In the subsequent notices, it was specifically mentioned that why order

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original return, penalty levied under section\n271(1)(c) was justified.\nHon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the above case.\n9.9 Although

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original return, penalty levied under section\n271(1)(c) was justified.\nHon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the above case.\n9.9 Although

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 154 of the Act which allows an appellant to correct its mistakes. The fact that the rectification is allowed within a period of 4 years also underlines the fact that the Act recognises that mistakes may occur and, in such cases, corrective remedies should be available to enable an appellant to rectify mistakes and where the mistake comes

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. 40. Ground No. 7 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is, therefore, being disposed off as being premature nature. 41. Ground No. 8 The Learned CIT(A) erred in his interpretation of the Act, the Insurance

UNICORN INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

271(1) of the Act if the assessee fails to submit return of income fails to submit return of income u/s 139 of the Act u/s 139 of the Act without reasonable cause within the period prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act within the period prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act within the period prescribed u/s

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) Expl 5A held that even where\nsubsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum\nand offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not\ndisclosed in original return, penalty levied under section\n271(1)(c) was justified.\nHon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the above case.\n9.9 Although

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 271(1)(c) without any reasonable cause and rendered himself liable to such penalty. He worked the minimum penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.44,03,865/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Hence, the AO imposed upon penalty of Rs. 44

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act can be sustained on such addition. Honourable Gujarat High court in RAMESHCHANDRA A SHAH 019. VERSUS ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE 3 OR HIS SUCCESSOR TAX APPEAL NO. 800 of 2008 dated August 10, 2016, on the question of law " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act can be sustained on such addition. Honourable Gujarat High court in RAMESHCHANDRA A SHAH 019. VERSUS ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE 3 OR HIS SUCCESSOR TAX APPEAL NO. 800 of 2008 dated August 10, 2016, on the question of law " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

u/s 80IC of the Act 02. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- ““Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant) craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -7(2) (hereinafter referred