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

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

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." In the Appellant's case also, the addition is made on adhoc

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." In the Appellant's case also, the addition is made on adhoc

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,63,572/- on the enhancement of income

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

58,45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly

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

58,45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly

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

58,45,378/-. 6. While the penalty proceedings were initiated, the assessee was confronted to clarify as to why penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response, the assessee made his submissions before the ld. AO, however the contentions raised by the assessee are not enough to satisfy the ld. AO, accordingly

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,63,572/- on the enhancement of income

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,63,572/- on the enhancement of income

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the\nfact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of\nestimation of income.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,63,572/- on the enhancement of income

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty