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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAWANISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA SHARMA, MUMBAI

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,08,76,000/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to adhere to the provisions of section 50C

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

271(1)(c) of the Act which are not found relevant to decide the issue before us. Only the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. CIT/NFAC [2023] 152 taxmann.com 382/202 ITD 379 (Mumbai - Trib.) is found to be in the context of penalty under Section 270A

JOCKY CAMILO FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaljocky Camilo Fernandes Dd Thakur Wadi, Near Chawl No.03, Agar Bazar, Dadar (W) Mumbai-400 028 Pan: Aadpf5163G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-18 (2) (4) Mumbai-12 ..... Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee Individual filed its return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 1,44,352/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration assessee had income from Business from M/s. Glocaf 3 Jocky Camilo

MOHD. IMTIYAZ FAQIR MOHD SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 23(2)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh, Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 100, Blue Flame Apartment, 40 S V Room No. 115, 1St Floor, Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Agpps 6863 A Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions as under : 1. Short Term Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is initiated separately for the concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” 16. For better understanding and analysis of the issue we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 43CA as under: “[Special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than

SHAMOON AHMED MULLA,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so imposed in the first appeal by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Thrust of assessee in his appeal is that it has been imposed on income which has been added under the head ‘Income from other sources’ under a deeming provision

EMERGING MULTITADE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. WARD 6(2)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emerging Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward 6(2)(4), 396, Kamat Industrial Estate, Veer Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Road, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 2366 C Appellant Respondent

50C which is contrary to rules of reasonableness in approach and betr to rules of reasonableness in approach and betrays a prejudiced ays a prejudiced mind. amounting to Rs. 299010/ mind. amounting to Rs. 299010/- Ground7-All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice All of the above

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

50C, Section 92 of the Act (Section 92 has been discussed in detail in following paragraph) etc. The income received and computed as per the provisions of the Act has to be accepted by the revenue as the taxable income.  Transfer pricing provisions as contained under Sections 92 to 92F of the Act, read with Rules

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. ITA No.3595/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-2012] 2. First we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 15/04/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. ITA No.3595/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-2012] 2. First we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 15/04/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre

ALIF COSTRUCTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for inaccurate particulars of income. 5 I.T.A. No. 1550/Mum/2023 ALIF CONSTRUCTION 5. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and by filling written submissions claimed as under:- "(2) The appellant had filed its return of income for A. Y. 2014-15 showing total income