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) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

61 taxmann.com 200 (Bom.). 11 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that the Assessee is a habitual offender as observed by the AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order as she has also claimed the deduction u/s

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

61,79,000/- pertaining to exception items written off during the relevant previous year. As per paragraph 4.2, 5.7, and 8.2 of the Assessment Order, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular of income in respect of (a), (b) and (e) above. Whereas, penalty proceedings under Section 271

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

61,10,696/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.36557,78,95,816/- u/s 115JB of Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was revised on 27.03.2016 wherein income under normal provisions of the Act was shown at Rs.18740,59,11,136/-, whereas book profit of Rs.36419,30,98,080/- was shown

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 ()

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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 ()

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

61,56,700/- under normal provisions of the Act and Book profit of Rs. 26207,76,56,848/- under section 115JB of the Act.\n3.2 The appellant electronically filed a revised return on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.14956,85,42,970/- under normal provisions and Rs. 26207,76,56,848/- under section 115JB of the Act. Copy

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

61,10,696/- under the normal\nprovisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.36557,78,95,816/- u/s\n115JB of Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was\nrevised on 27.03.2016 wherein income under normal provisions of\nthe Act was shown at Rs.18740,59,11,136/-, whereas book profit of\nRs.36419,30,98,080/- was shown

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)

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 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income, without appreciating the fact as under- a) The Ld. AO has levied penalty u/s 271

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) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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

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

61,239 (at serial number 2. in table above). As regards the addition of INR.2,59,07,668/- (at serial number 3. in table above), the Learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR.5,18,153/- [@2% of INR.2,59,07,668/-] and deleted the remaining addition of INR.2,53,89,514/-. 8. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well

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

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

61,239 (at serial number 2. in table above). As regards the addition of INR.2,59,07,668/- (at serial number 3. in table above), the Learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR.5,18,153/- [@2% of INR.2,59,07,668/-] and deleted the remaining addition of INR.2,53,89,514/-. 8. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well

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

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

61,239 (at serial number 2. in table above). As regards the addition of INR.2,59,07,668/- (at serial number 3. in table above), the Learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR.5,18,153/- [@2% of INR.2,59,07,668/-] and deleted the remaining addition of INR.2,53,89,514/-. 8. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well

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

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

61,239 (at serial number 2. in table above). As regards the addition of INR.2,59,07,668/- (at serial number 3. in table above), the Learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR.5,18,153/- [@2% of INR.2,59,07,668/-] and deleted the remaining addition of INR.2,53,89,514/-. 8. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well