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)

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of A.O. levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 4,50,368/- on addition u/s. 50C of Rs.13,25,000/- being difference between stamp duty value and agreement value without appreciating that Sec. 50C is a deeming provision and addition u/s. 50C does not amount

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(1)( c ) of the IT Act against the above addition of long term capital gain." 4. The CIT after discussing the facts and legal position, finally noted that the matter should have been referred to the DVO u/s

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

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

section, the AO need to establish that the assessee either concealed the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, which is not the position in present case. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and various case laws relied upon by the assessee, the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) on this issue is directed to be deleted. 21. In view

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

2: Levy of Penalty 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

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

2,17,095/- The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming 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

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

section 50C deemed sale consideration at higher sum, in absence of any iota of evidence that the assessee had received more amount than that shown by it, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable.” Facts being identical, we follow the ratio laid down in the above decisions and delete the penalty levied on the difference between the value determined

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

section 50C deemed sale consideration at higher sum, in absence of any iota of evidence that the assessee had received more amount than that shown by it, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable.” Facts being identical, we follow the ratio laid down in the above decisions and delete the penalty levied on the difference between the value determined

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

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income in terms of Explanation 1 to Sec.271(1} in respect of addition of Rs.9,06,000/- as short term capital gain u/s 50 of the I.T.Act.” 20 ITA No.6992/Mum/2008. M/s.BSI Securities International Limited. 11.3 Against the above order, the assessee

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

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

R.G. BULCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1180/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri R.G. Bulchandani, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ A/21, Darshan Apartments, 1(3)(1) V. Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400006. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadpb0862E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of IT Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has received income from salary, income from house property, income from business and profession and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed