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 ()

5. As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition made in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act itself was made in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act made in order

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 ()

5. As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition As regards the additional ground of the assessee that addition made in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act itself was made in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act made in 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

5 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED: 9. As per provisions of section 271 (J)(c) of the Income tax Act, for a just levy of penalty, there are some primary requirements that need to be fulfilled. Relevant provisions of the Act are as under: 10. Section 271 of the Act provides : "(1) If the Assessing Officer

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 20,10,01,733/- may be deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 20,10,01,733/- may be deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

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

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

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

5% of gross profit. Meanwhile as the ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 penalty proceedings were initiated, penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed levying penalty of ₹76,280/- for concealment of income. The order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), wherein the penalty was confirmed. Therefore

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 ()

45,73,796/-as confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estima confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estimated profit margin 5% ted profit margin 5% of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919 of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919/-made from made from M/s. Harmony Exim Pv M/s. Harmony Exim

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 ()

45,73,796/-as confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estima confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estimated profit margin 5% ted profit margin 5% of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919 of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919/-made from made from M/s. Harmony Exim Pv M/s. Harmony Exim

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

45,180 as against the return of income of Rs. 3,91,034 by adding Rs. 16,54,146 on account of bogus purchases. The penalty proceedings were also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of two particulars of income in the assessment order by issuing penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). Thereafter, the assessing

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

45,180 as against the return of income of Rs. 3,91,034 by adding Rs. 16,54,146 on account of bogus purchases. The penalty proceedings were also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of two particulars of income in the assessment order by issuing penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). Thereafter, the assessing

M/S MASCOT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

45,53,301/-. One of the additions additions made was in respect of capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect of capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect of capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition On further appeal

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

45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty

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

45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty

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

45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,63,572/- on the enhancement of income

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

45,378/-.\n6.\nWhile the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was\nconfronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the\nld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy\nthe ld. AO, accordingly, a penalty