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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating judgment on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies

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

90,00,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the Assessee had deliberately diverted interest-bearing funds for non- business purposes for the entire year, as observed in the assessment years under consideration. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The learned

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

90,00,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the Assessee had deliberately diverted interest-bearing funds for non- business purposes for the entire year, as observed in the assessment years under consideration. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The learned

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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

90,938/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unproved creditors. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted addition to Rs.8,87,03,901/-. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No. 866/PN/2009 for assessment year 2004-05 decided on 30- 10-2013 further reduced the addition

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) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

90% of undisclosed income. 30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that the AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act was asked from

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

90% of undisclosed income. 30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that the AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act was asked from

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

90% of undisclosed income. 30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that the AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act was asked from

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

90% of undisclosed income. 30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that the AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act was asked from

UNICORN INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

90,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealing particulars of income. Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealing particulars of income. 2. Before us, the assessee has also filed a copy of the additional Before us, the assessee has also filed a copy of the additional Before us, the assessee

SHIVKUMAR DEVIDUTT SARAF HUF,PUNE vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2010 and 4.12.2013 is bad in law inasmuch as neither of these two notices specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, and consequently, the impugned penalty order is also bad in law. The appellant, therefore, prays that

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D `18,39,11,187/- 2 M/s. Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated by the AO for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances