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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate -. Before us, the particulars of income of income amounting to Rs.13,65,104/- Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision

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

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.\"\n13.\nLd AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices,\nvitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld.\nCIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded\nthat the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.” 13. Ld AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices, vitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded that the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.\"\n13.\nLd AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices,\nvitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld.\nCIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded\nthat the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.\"\n13.\nLd AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices,\nvitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld.\nCIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded\nthat the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Issue demand notice.\"\n13.\nLd AR further added, that the aforesaid irregularity in the notices,\nvitiating the entire proceedings of penalty was challenged before the Ld.\nCIT(A), who had dealt with such preposition by the assessee, had concluded\nthat the nature of infraction in order to effect the provisions

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the\nmatter.\nGround 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act\n5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that

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

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection of assessee is allowed and appeal of\nthe Revenue is dismissed

51,70,708 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nWhile doing so, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that:\n•\nthe Cross-objector had made full and adequate disclosure of all the\nmaterial facts at the time of filing its return of income.\n•\nno penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied when

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

section 271(1)(c) invoked by the AO does not apply to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but it does apply to concealment of particulars; that merely because exempt income is computed differently by the AO vis-à-vis no case for penalty is made out. 11. We have perused the impugned order passed