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. 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

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

271 of the IT Act. In the notice, the AO has scored off the phrase \"have concealed the particulars of your income\" and the charge intimated for initiation of penalty was \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income\". In subsequent notices, reference was made to notice dated 10.11.2020. In the subsequent notices, it was specifically mentioned that why order

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

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

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

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

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

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 HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

90% of undisclosed income.\n30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated\npenalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that\nthe AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for\nwhy 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

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

90% of undisclosed income.\n30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated\npenalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that\nthe AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for\nwhy 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

90% of undisclosed income.\n30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated\npenalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that\nthe AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for\nwhy penalty should not be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act was asked from

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

90% of undisclosed income.\n30.1 I have found that the appellant urged that the AO has not properly initiated\npenalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. However, it is found from the records that\nthe AO has issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2018 wherein explanation for\nwhy 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

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