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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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 ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

58,500/- which is ITA Nos. 6267 to 6269/Mum/2018 & CO Nos. 243 to 245/Mum/2019 equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has challenged levy of penalty u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by Rs. 3,36,58,914/- when the assessee had made a false claim of deduction u/s. 80IC of the I.T Act suppressing the fact that it had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed for claiming such deduction.” 2. The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and/or to alter

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)

58. It must be noticed that this finding recording concealment in the order to be passed by these authorities is only for the purpose of initiating. The said finding is not conclusive; it is in the nature of prima facie satisfaction, which authorises them to initiate the penalty proceedings. Once a penalty proceedings is validly initiated, then under Section

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on merits is also cannot be sustained under the Act, because the Ld. AO has levied penalty on estimated additions made in assessment proceedings, which has been finally reduced by the appellate authorities, that too on estimation basis. Therefore, in these facts, it cannot be considered that the assessee case

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

58,771/- was worked out to Rs.2,38,04,246/- and penalty of Rs.2,38,04,246/- was levied. Similarly penalty of Rs.2,20,85,000/- and Rs.4,08,34,150/- was worked out for A.Y. 1999-2000 and for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 3. Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

58,771/- was worked out to Rs.2,38,04,246/- and penalty of Rs.2,38,04,246/- was levied. Similarly penalty of Rs.2,20,85,000/- and Rs.4,08,34,150/- was worked out for A.Y. 1999-2000 and for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 3. Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

58,771/- was worked out to Rs.2,38,04,246/- and penalty of Rs.2,38,04,246/- was levied. Similarly penalty of Rs.2,20,85,000/- and Rs.4,08,34,150/- was worked out for A.Y. 1999-2000 and for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 3. Matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) was accordingly imposed at 100% of the tax sought Arti Shailen Topiwala 7 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 to be evaded, quantified at to be evaded, quantified at ₹58,48,075/-, vide order dated , vide order dated 28.09.2016. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) was accordingly imposed at 100% of the tax sought Arti Shailen Topiwala 7 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 to be evaded, quantified at to be evaded, quantified at ₹58,48,075/-, vide order dated , vide order dated 28.09.2016. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Aggrieved

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

penalty was always leviable under section 271(1)(c). 1.3.2 I find that appellant had filed the return of income on for AY 2005- 06 on 21.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.5,76,54,770/- alongwith Tax Audit Report and audited financial statements. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 31.10.2006 and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of I.T.A

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” In the penalty order dated 18.07.2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has levied a minimum penalty of Rs.1,58

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

58,340/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened for scrutiny on the basis of information received 3 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad from the sales tax department, Maharashtra. The above information contained the details of certain person who had provided bogus purchase bills to the assessee for accommodation entries. The assessing officer noticed that

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