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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.03.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) contesting the legality as well as the merits in imposing the penalty. Submissions were made before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee on all the aspects; however, the ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit or substance in the contentions raised

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

9,57,83,046/-.\n30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity\nin the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.03.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) contesting the legality as well as the merits in imposing the penalty. Submissions were made before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee on all the aspects; however, the ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit or substance in the contentions raised

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.03.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) contesting the legality as well as the merits in imposing the penalty. Submissions were made before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee on all the aspects; however, the ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit or substance in the contentions raised

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

9,57,83,046/-.\n30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity\nin the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground

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

9,57,83,046/-.\n30.2 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity\nin the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- u/s. 271AAB of the\nAct. In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 6,32,16,831/- levied by the AO\nis hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, levying penalty of INR.1,76,210/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above addition of INR.5,18,153/- sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 10. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of above penalty under Section 271(1

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

penalty in the notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271 of the Act started with the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT &Anrs Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 0565 (Kar.), wherein it was held that the notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section

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

9. Now, the question before the question before us arise as to whether the assessee can arise as to whether the assessee can file two appeals against the same penal two appeals against the same penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The plea of the ld. counsel bef he plea

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

9. Now, the question before the question before us arise as to whether the assessee can arise as to whether the assessee can file two appeals against the same penal two appeals against the same penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The plea of the ld. counsel bef he plea

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.Subsequent to the above judgment, in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.), a Division Bench of hon'ble Karnataka High Court