ABHIJIT AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT -45, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.750/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

u/s 54F of the Act, and whether it is sufficient or not to take it out of clutches of penalty provisions as are contained in Section 271

ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK BHIMRAO MOKASHI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly applicable and the AO , therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 42,29,880/- being ITA 7053/Mum/2013 8 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty orders dated 15-06-2012 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty

MUSTAFA ABDULLA ARODIA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 31, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Mustafa Abdulla Arodia Vs. Pr. Cit-31, Dilaram Estate Mumbai S.V.Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400 062 Pan/Gir No.Aacpa1141Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), it was submitted that in the case of assessee, quantum assessment proceedings, the wrong claim of section 54F

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.‖ 17. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order accepted the plea of the assessee and treated the resultant gain to be long term capital gains, by observing as under: ―8.3.1. As regards the first issue, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has surrendered

UMASHANKAR MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5653/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5652/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Vandana Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrom5217G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6167/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Acit-13(3)(1), Vs. Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Aayakar Bhavan, Navgaon, Dahisar (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400068 Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

section 54F of the Act. We further direct the AO to allow the benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition from the date of payment. 17. Ground pertaining to interest u/s 234B and D is consequential and the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271

ACIT - 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UMASHANKAR P. MISHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5653/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5652/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Vandana Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrom5217G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6167/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Acit-13(3)(1), Vs. Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Aayakar Bhavan, Navgaon, Dahisar (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400068 Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

section 54F of the Act. We further direct the AO to allow the benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition from the date of payment. 17. Ground pertaining to interest u/s 234B and D is consequential and the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271

ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. PRAMILA R. WADHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c). 16. The disallowance under section 54F in the case of the appellant was a legal

REKHA BHUPENDRA DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD-II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F of the Act. Thus, the Capital Gain of Rs. 44,68,390/- was brought to tax. No further appeal was filed by assessee against the quantum assessment. The AO thereafter initiated the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The notice under section

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)

u/s 54F Investment in a new residential house property -Flat no. 1001, Estonia B Kandivli, Mumbai vide registered agreement for sale dt. 29.03.2011 with M/s. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Restricted to the extent of capital gains Rs. 1,40,18,317/- ----------------------- (v) Taxable long term capital gains NIL ================ 17. The learned counsel further submitted that the exemption under section 54F

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

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

u/s 54F\nInvestment in a new residential house\nproperty -Flat no. 1001, Estonia B\nKandivli, Mumbai\nvide registered agreement for sale\ndt. 29.03.2011 with M/s. Hiranandani\nConstructions Pvt. Ltd.\nRestricted to the extent of capital gains Rs. 1,40,18,317/-\n(v) Taxable long term capital gains NIL\n17. The learned counsel further submitted that the\nexemption under section

ARUNA SATISH KABRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 31st May, 2017

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2008-09) Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra Vs. Ito-12(3)(4), C/O. Kabra Agencies Mumbai (Respondent) 2Nd Floor, Mustfa Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 (Appellant) Pan : Aahpk4542N

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In this appeal, the solitary issue raised by the assessee is with respect to penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,24,100/-. 2 Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee

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

54F though the said deduction was partly allowed by CIT(A) and pointed out during the penalty proceedings. 2.1 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, your appellants pray that the order of the learned CIT(A) be modified by deleting penalty levied on the above addition u/s 271

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

54F though the said deduction was partly allowed by CIT(A) and pointed out during the penalty proceedings. 2.1 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, your appellants pray that the order of the learned CIT(A) be modified by deleting penalty levied on the above addition u/s 271

ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MADHU C. GANWANI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) Smt. Madhu C. Ganwani, बनाम/ Room No. 319, 301, Pallonji Apartments, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 389, Linking Road, Vs. Mumbai – 12 Khar (West), Mumbai – 52 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aanpg 4048 D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Neil Philiph - Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Ms. Varsha Dhameja – Ca

54F for making investment in two adjoining flats. The ld. Assessing Officer also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the factual matrix and deleted the penalty. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 M/s. Smt. Madhu C. Ganwani ITA Nos.2458/Mum/2014

VANITA H. ALIMCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Mrs. Vanita H. Alimchandani Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2) C/O. M.R. Sharma & Co. Piramal Chambers E-8, Poonam Darshan Mumbai 400012 Vs. Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400093 Pan – Agypa7278C Appellant Respondent

penalty of Rs. 86,96,280/- levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(C) may be deleted. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4.1 At the outset of the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted and brought to the notice of the Bench

DCIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SUMAN N. BHALLA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. I am satisfied that the assessee has committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) on the additions of Rs.51,30,000/- as discussed above and this is a fit case for the levy of penalty

DR. SANJAY J. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdr. Sanjay J. Mehta Acit-16(3), 2/5, Hanvant Bhavan, 90/E, Mumbai. Napean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai-400006. Pan: Afopm8467J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) dated 30.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Penalty LEVIED U/S 271(1)(c) FOR EXEMPTION u/s. 54F

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

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

penalty of Rs.15,14,231/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any ground(s) of appeal\nbefore or during the course of hearing of the appeal.\n6. We have heard Ld. AR who argued on behalf of the assessee that all\nthe particulars furnished were correct and accurate