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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case, considering the observations of the AO in the assessment order alongside his action of non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee qua section 271(1

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

5. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee we take up the appeal of the assessee related to related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee in its raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: appeal are reproduced

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

5. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee we take up the appeal of the assessee related to related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee in its raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: appeal are reproduced

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

5. In ground no.2 of the CO for both the years, the assessee has contended that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground wherein it was pointed out that the penalty order was liable to be quashed as the AO while issuing show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

5. In ground no.2 of the CO for both the years, the assessee has contended that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground wherein it was pointed out that the penalty order was liable to be quashed as the AO while issuing show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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

5 to section\n271(1)(c)\n9.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar\n[2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta), while deciding matter\nrelated to section 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

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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

5 to section\n271(1)(c)\n9.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar\n[2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta), while deciding matter\nrelated to section 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

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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

5 to section\n271(1)(c)\n9.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar\n[2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta), while deciding matter\nrelated to section 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

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

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s