SHAKIL HAMID SHEIKH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

50C does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,50,368/- may be deleted. “ 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29th September, 2008 declaring total income of Rs. 67,17,110/-. The assessee is engaged

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

section 50C in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No new circumstance have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by learned CIT (A). Moreover, there are no reasons for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that

ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of C- 306, Crystal Plaza, Income Tax, Andheri Link Road, Central Circle – 20, Andheri (West), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aacca2062M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Harit ( Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020

50C is a technical addition and in my considered view, does not make assessee liable to penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). In any case to levy the penalty under this Assessment Year: 2011-12 section

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

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

50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow carry forward of capital loss of ₹3,39,60,946/- to the assessee. 016. In the result

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

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

50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow carry forward of capital loss of ₹3,39,60,946/- to the assessee. 016. In the result

DR. PRAKASH D.SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdr. Prakash D. Samant Dcit, Cc-3(2) 1St Floor, Sundara Narayan Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Niwas, Padmavati Road, Opp. Iit Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gate, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaeps0065P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari S. Raheja (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar (Dr)

u/s 271(1)(c) more than once. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levying of penalty despite the fact that the order passed by ITA No. 1166 Mum 2017-Dr. Prakash D. Samant the Ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation as per the provisions

DCIT, CC-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 50C of the Act for computation of capital gains and the Ld. CIT(A) had earlier confirmed the additions of Rs.1,74,36,000/- u/s. 50c of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in Law, the CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271

GUNWANT SOHANLAL KHERODIYA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kalyan Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya Plot No.30, Office No.101, 504, A3, Vs. Jeevandeep Apartment, Swami Devprakash Garden, Sai Section Ambernath-421501 Opp Sibu Palace, Ambarnath, Thane 421501 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agepk2846E

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya; A.Y. 14-15 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and levying the Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, without

NIRAJ MUKESH PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Niraj Mukesh Patel Flat No. Asst. Commissioner Of 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp9786F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil Mukesh Patel Flat Asst. Commissioner Of No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp8745J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2018

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Assessing Officer on taxability of difference of the Long Term Capital Gains by applying provisions of section 50C

NIKHIL MUKESH PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Niraj Mukesh Patel Flat No. Asst. Commissioner Of 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp9786F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil Mukesh Patel Flat Asst. Commissioner Of No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp8745J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2018

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Assessing Officer on taxability of difference of the Long Term Capital Gains by applying provisions of section 50C

NUSRAT MUSTAFA RASIWALA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner Of 2/5, Ai Hasnat Chs Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South Road, 10Th Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jvpd, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabpr1985J

Section 50C of the IT Act resulting taxable LTCG at Rs.21,26,505/- .The AO has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

NITIN GOPINATH BHOIR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

penalty u/s 271(1) (c).\n11. The contention of the appellant that the AO has made addition on estimated\nbasis by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3)4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that in all these three Assessment Years assessee has sold flats on which it had claimed Long Term Capital Gains and offered to tax at 20%. In the Annexure to computation of income, the assessee has given the reason for claiming Long Term Capital Gains on sale

SKF INIDA LTD( SINCE MAY 19 2004 NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM SKF BEARING INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that in all these three Assessment Years assessee has sold flats on which it had claimed Long Term Capital Gains and offered to tax at 20%. In the Annexure to computation of income, the assessee has given the reason for claiming Long Term Capital Gains on sale

M/S. D.R. PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,17,095/- with respect to an estimated addition to the sale consideration as per section 50C

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same\n assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely\nconsequential and arise directly out of the additions made in\nthe quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard\ntogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.\n2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.\n4975/Mum/2025

DAIRY OWNERS LEAGUE CO OP SOC .LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 50C of the Act and also, the error committed in respect of interest earned on FDR while filing return of income. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly the AO was right in levying penalty u/s 271

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely consequential and arise directly out of the additions made in the quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No. 4975/Mum/2025. In this