DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders no the assessee calling for his comment but despite three reminders

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

money, but also for penalty because of the failure to prove the source of possession of such excess cash. 7. The main emphasis of the Authorised Representative of the assessee in his reply to the show cause notice is on the issue relating to estimation of income by adopting gross profit percentage relating to the business of manufactures of Paneer

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

money, but also for penalty because of the failure to prove the source of possession of such excess cash. 7. The main emphasis of the Authorised Representative of the assessee in his reply to the show cause notice is on the issue relating to estimation of income by adopting gross profit percentage relating to the business of manufactures of Paneer

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

unexplained income. 4.3.3 (a) To understand the issue, at the very outset it will be worthwhile to mention that Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T, Act. 1961 can be initiated on two charges, ie. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If proceedings are initiated on charge of concealment, then

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

unexplained income. 4.3.3 (a) To understand the issue, at the very outset it will be worthwhile to mention that Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T, Act. 1961 can be initiated on two charges, ie. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If proceedings are initiated on charge of concealment, then

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

unexplained income. 4.3.3 (a) To understand the issue, at the very outset it will be worthwhile to mention that Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T, Act. 1961 can be initiated on two charges, ie. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If proceedings are initiated on charge of concealment, then

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

money for booking of flat and it was only to buy peace and avoid protracted litigation that the appellant offered amount of Rs.1,42,20,000/- as additional income in the return of income filed u/s. 153A of the Act and hence, the penalty confirmed amounting to Rs.43,00,000/- u/s.271( I )(c) of the Act is unjustified and liable

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

money as compensation amount.However, itis wort compensation amount.However, itis worth mentioning that h mentioning that making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the making submission on piece of paper cannot absolve the appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility in submitting necessary appellant from its responsibility

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,THANE vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, THANE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 53,86,564/- made u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit on account of consideration received on sale of equity shares. Let us begin with the cases relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. The first case is Andaman Timber Industries (supra). In this case the assessee

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initi u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which would be premature for adjudication at this stage. Hence dismissed. 8. In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No. 1605/Mum/2021 for A.Y. 2014-15 is partly allowed . Shri Yogesh Thakkar – ITA No. 1612/Mum/2021 – Asst Year 2015-16 - Assessee Appeal 9. Though the assessee