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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, will depend on the nature of adjustment.\n6. The above settled position is to be followed in respect of section 115JC of the Act also.\n7. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various\nadditions. The assessee filed appeal against the quantum additions\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\nAfter receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer\nissued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty might\nnot

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

63,360/-. Under these circumstances, the Ld. AO had held that the assessee had concealed material particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty after observing that the explanation of the assessee was not bonafide and therefore Explanation 1 to section

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

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty 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

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact no penalty can be levied where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation of income

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

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty 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

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

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty 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

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

section 271(1)(c) under\nwhich the penalty was initiated.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal\nerred in confirming the penalty 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

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in\nthe matter.\nGround 3 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act - The\nsaid ground is consequential in nature\n3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest

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

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

63,360/-. Under these circumstances, the\nLd. AO had held that the assessee had concealed material particulars and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c)\nwas levied. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty after observing that the\nexplanation of the assessee was not bonafide and therefore Explanation 1 to\nsection 271

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

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

63,360/-. Under these circumstances, the\nLd. AO had held that the assessee had concealed material particulars and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c)\nwas levied. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty after observing that the\nexplanation of the assessee was not bonafide and therefore Explanation 1 to\nsection 271

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

63,360/-. Under these circumstances, the\nLd. AO had held that the assessee had concealed material particulars and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c)\nwas levied. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty after observing that the\nexplanation of the assessee was not bonafide and therefore Explanation 1 to\nsection 271