D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)c) of the Act be dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

survey action u/s. 133A amounting to Rs. 30,65,075/-. The ld. AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271

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

penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for non-compliance of notice issued by the Assessing Officer during assessment procedings. Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh Doiphode Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh 2 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts of the case

ALLIED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MALAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30 (1) (1), BANDRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

271(1)(c) are quasi-criminal in nature, and in the absence of any material to establish contumacious conduct, deliberate falsity, or intention to mislead the tax authorities, the confirmation of penalty is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. That the CIT(A) has failed to consider the settled legal position that penalty cannot be sustained where

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-4(4), 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400063. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-12(2)(1), Now Dy. 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Cit Central Circle-4(4), Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400063. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent

survey u/s. 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under 133A for the assessment u/s. 153C is not permissible under law 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

133A conducted on 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return

CHOUDHARY CONSTRUCTION CO.,GOREGAON -W vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 31(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, once the AO was not sure regarding which limb of penalty provision he intends to press into, therefore his action of levy of penalty is against the provisions of law. It was submitted that the penalty in the present case had been levied without issuing of mandatory notice and on both the limb

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however The assessee filed additional grounds on 04.12.2019 however finally revised its additional ground vide letter dated 16.03.2023 finally revised its additional ground vide letter dated

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), CENTRAL RANGE - 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)c) of the Act be dropped.\n9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 13,57,445/- of the Act.\n3.3 The additional grounds raised being purely

RAVINDRA WALIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

survey proceeding u/s. 133A of the Act and the same was not found in the books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) further held that one of bank account of the assessee was also not included in the books of accounts and that the assessee has removed certain entries pertaining to cash from his computer during the year under

RAVINDRA WALIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

survey proceeding u/s. 133A of the Act and the same was not found in the books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) further held that one of bank account of the assessee was also not included in the books of accounts and that the assessee has removed certain entries pertaining to cash from his computer during the year under

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

133A of the Act on 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that assessee issued shares at huge premium to various issued shares at huge premium to various share applicant issued shares at huge premium to various companies. The Investigation Wing

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

133A of the Act on 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that 21.11.2013. During survey action it was observed that assessee issued shares at huge premium to various issued shares at huge premium to various share applicant issued shares at huge premium to various companies. The Investigation Wing

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 2 6 , MUMBAI vs. MANMOHAN DAULAL RATHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

survey u/s 133A of the IT Act 1961 at the premises of 12 brokers and few\nof their client across India. The losses and profits were given to different\nclients/beneficiaries according to their requirements. These clients had\ntaken fictitious losses to set off against their profits with a view to reduce\ntheir tax liability as well as took fictitious

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)c) of the Act be\ndropped.\n9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying\ninterest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs.\n13,57,445/- of the Act.\n3.3 The additional grounds raised being purely

TIRUPATI REDDY MUKKU,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(3), MUMBAI

u/s 271(1)(c) without properly recording the reasons to levy penalty in the assessment order and there is no clear-cut finding and crystallized charge being conveyed by the learned officer and hence liable to be struck down.” The facts in brief are that the Appellant, proprietor of M/s Tirumala 3. Construction engaged in the work of civil

EMPOWER INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2011-12)

penalty order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld.CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case therefore liable to be annulled. P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 4904/mum/2025. 2. That the notice issued u/s 271