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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

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 In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of already concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

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

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

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

71,12,627/- calculated @100% of the tax evaded was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the quantum addition in respect of undisclosed income from seized documents stands deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2023. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) held

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

71,12,627/- calculated @100% of the tax evaded was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the quantum addition in respect of undisclosed income from seized documents stands deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2023. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) held

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

71,12,627/- calculated @100% of the tax evaded was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the quantum addition in respect of undisclosed income from seized documents stands deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2023. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) held

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses, as is held

M/S SANGEETA RUSHIKESH DOIPHODE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh Ito-15(3)(1), Doiphode, Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, 8/158, Navrang Society, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Mumbai, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East) S.O. 400055. Pan No. Achpd 5219 R Appellant Respondent

71(1)(b) of the IT Act, were initiated in this case by issuing notice cum show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) dated 31.03.2022 requiring 271(1)(b) dated 31.03.2022 requiring the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied for non the assessee to explain

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

71,20,377/- as against ₹.19,96,45,361/- claimed by the assessee. 3. With regard to the above said adjustments, Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Not satisfied with the submissions furnished by the assessee, Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹.6,06,66,618/- being

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

section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed in the following decisions - • CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC). ITA No 380 of 2015 • CIT vs Samson Perinchery (SLP)(392 ITR 4) (BOM) • CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar) p) The final penalty is imposed by invoking Explanation 1 for furnishing inaccurate particulars

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

71,37,382/. (ii) incorrect/wrong claim u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.36,69,95.593/- and (iii) Payment of Rs. 1,44.000/- in cash by the appellant to one of its employee. However, the appellant has not been able to explain the source of such payment and therefore, the penalty on this amount is on account of undisclosed

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

71,37,382/. (ii) incorrect/wrong claim u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.36,69,95.593/- and (iii) Payment of Rs. 1,44.000/- in cash by the appellant to one of its employee. However, the appellant has not been able to explain the source of such payment and therefore, the penalty on this amount is on account of undisclosed

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

71,37,382/. (ii) incorrect/wrong claim u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.36,69,95.593/- and (iii) Payment of Rs. 1,44.000/- in cash by the appellant to one of its employee. However, the appellant has not been able to explain the source of such payment and therefore, the penalty on this amount is on account of undisclosed