SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT 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 ()

56,660/ income varied as compared to income declared in original return of as compared to income declared in original return of as compared to income declared in original return of income filed on 28/11/2014) income filed on 28/11/2014) . u/s 153A of the 4.1 During the course of course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer

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 ()

56,660/ income varied as compared to income declared in original return of as compared to income declared in original return of as compared to income declared in original return of income filed on 28/11/2014) income filed on 28/11/2014) . u/s 153A of the 4.1 During the course of course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

56. 4. During the course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , the AO observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 9,99,96,772/- u/s 80IC of the 1961 Act. The deduction had been claimed for the manufacturing activities carried out by unit at Baddi, Taluka : Nalagarh , District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The AO observed from the financial

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

56. Provisions of Section 274(3) makes it clear that if an authority other than the Assessing Officer passes an order under Chapter XXI which deals with matters of penalties then such authority has to forthwith send the copy of the order to the Assessing Officer. This fortifies that it is the authority who is satisfied in the course

MUNIR M. KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in limiting the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of Rs. 4,43,49,1 49/- to Rs.58,46,280/- stating that the concealed income

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). [Para 9.1] In view of aforesaid, impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting penalty was to be upheld..' Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K C Builders (supra), the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on transfer pricing adjustment is deleted. 7.3.3.7 The levy of penalty

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

56) (Trib-Del) (TM). Without prejudice to the above, it is stated that non-filing of appeal against additions in assessment itself does not amount to acceptance of disallowance and cannot automatically form basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

u/s 133A, it would automatically follow that income had been concealed in the return of income filed, the assessment whereof was completed on 28th March, 2013. The provisions of sub-section 1 of section 271 suggest that if the assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars coupled with absence and satisfactory explanation, that would per se make assessee liable to pay penalty. Concealment

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Penalty U/s. 271(1) (c) cannot be levied and assessee pleads that there is neither "Concealment' nor 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' by him. The assessee also relies on following decisions of various High Courts to put weight that he has not concealed the Income. Judicial Pronouncements: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh

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

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income