DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

54,634/-. On further appeal, the . On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the reason that same was levied in Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the reason that same was l Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the reason that same was l respect of addition sustained on the estimate basis relying

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

54. The Full Bench framed an issue as to whether the assessment order clearly recorded satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or the other, or both limbs mentioned in section 271(1)(c) and whether a mere defect in the notice not striking off the relevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. 55 to 58. The question before

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

54. The Full Bench framed an issue as to whether the assessment order clearly recorded satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or the other, or both limbs mentioned in section 271(1)(c) and whether a mere defect in the notice not striking off the relevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. 55 to 58. The question before

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

54,146 towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the Income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed

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

54,146 towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the Income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n14A of the Act, which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), observing\nas under:\n\"7.3.3.2 Penalty levied on disallowance u/s.14A of the Act:\nThe AO levied penalty in respect of disallowance made u/s.14A of\nthe Act. In the assessment order, the AO made disallowance of\nRs.711,99,54, 110/- u/s.14A, which was reduced

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

u/s 144 of the Act.It indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

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

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses

RNT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c). 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the act 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the act 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 3,56,891/ Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 3,56,891/- on addition

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

54-56, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAGPT2617J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Devendra Jain,AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. On perusal of above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the income of INR.3,54,910/- was offered to tax as well as assessed in the hand of JSY - father of the Assessee and therefore, the same income is being

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption