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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FABRIKANT TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

69C: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of levying the penalty of Rs.29,02,020/- u/s 271(1)(c) by treating the adhoc addition of Rs. 86,21,564/- on the basis of peak balance

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S REDSTAR, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

69C of the Act. It is now well settled that because the assessee has not contested the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. We also find The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under

DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI vs. PBA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed and appeal by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Central Circle- 36, M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Room No. 11, Aayakar Bhavan, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Vs. M.K. Marg, M. K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Asst. Cit, Central Circle- 36, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071. M.K. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C and disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 15,82,86,609/-. As business of assessee was not eligible as referred in section 80IA of the Act. In first appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the additions of Rs.5151638/- and disallowance of claim u/s80IA was sustained. The AO issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on 31.12.2009. The assessee contested

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income and issued notice dated 30.03.2014 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income and issued notice dated 30.03.2014 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income and issued notice dated 30.03.2014 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition is made of estimate basis? 9. The Tax- Effect involved in the instant case is Rs.3,91,799/-, which is below the prescribed limit as per CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) amended

M/S.ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

69C of the Act and Section 2 M/s. Allied Digital Services Limited 14A of the Act read with Rule 8 D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (in short, “Rules”) respectively. The AO while making the addition of Rs.5,35,91,882/- also recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

AVINASH NARAYAN SUTAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for concealment of income. 6.The AO has made the addition of undisclosed business receipts of Rs.30lakhs and unexplained cash money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 57,67,580/- and assessed the total income of Rs.89,24,450/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the 2 M/s. Pankaj Enterprises Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by raising grounds inter-alia that: “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing to recomputed penalty impossible u/s 271(1)(c) after computing capital gain on Development Agreement as per directions of Hon ITAT in its Appellate order without considering the fact

OPTIONS DEVELOPRS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CE CIR 22, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

271(1)(c) was held to be not justified.” 2.17. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in another case of SPS Steel & Power Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No.1391 & 1414/Kol/2011) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 30/06/2015. The relevant portion from the aforesaid order is reproduced hereunder:- “6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts