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 ()

57,280/-. The return of income The return of income was selected for scrutiny and selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on tax Act, 1961 (in short

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 ()

57,280/-. The return of income The return of income was selected for scrutiny and selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

57, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, in relation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

57,730 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s

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 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 ()

57,74,11,400, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneo 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts us in law and on facts of the case and is liable to be set aside

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

57,74,11,400, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneo 3. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts us in law and on facts of the case and is liable to be set aside

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

57,280/ being sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer levied being sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer levied being sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate penalty u/s 271

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

57, Mumbai [in short 'the\nLd. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2016-17, in relation to penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') levied by\nthe Assessing Officer.\n2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are\nreproduced as under:\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

57,280/-. The return of income\nwas selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') was completed on\n28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.2,12,77,280/-.\nSubsequently, in view of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the\nAct carried out in the case of the assessee, notice

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

57, Sector | | Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra\n| 17, Koperkhairne, | | Kurla Complex, Bandra\n| Maharashtra-400709 | | East,\n| | Maharashtra-400051\n\n| स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPG8827D\n| Appellant/अपीलार्थी\n| ..\n| Respondent/प्रतिवादी\n\n| निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee by:\n| राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:\n| None\n| Shri R. R. Makwana\n\n| सुनवाई

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

57,280/-. The return of income\nwas selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') was completed on\n28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.2,12,77,280/-.\nSubsequently, in view of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the\nAct carried out in the case of the assessee, notice

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

57,83,046/-.\n30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity\nin the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground

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

57,83,046/-. Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain 30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied

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

57,83,046/-. Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain 30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied

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

57,83,046/-. Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain 30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the Act. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied

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

57,83,046/-.\n30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity\nin the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground