DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DIAMOND COMPANY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

9) of the Act in order to treat the same as under-reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting. 5.5. Hence, it is pertinent to refer to sub section (2) of section 270A of the Act which mentions the scenarios under which a person shall be considered to have under- reporting of income; the relevant extract of the same

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

9. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings despite under-reporting of income by the assessee, being squarely covered under section 270A(2)(b) of the Act, and because of the non-initiation of penalty proceedings, the penalty payable in respect of the under

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9. From the above observations it is clear that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is not sustainable under the Act cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the assessee's income and that mere non-acceptance of claim by the revenue cannot attract any penalty. In assessee's case, the claim of the assessee that

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9. From the above observations it is clear that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is not sustainable under the Act cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the assessee's income and that mere non-acceptance of claim by the revenue cannot attract any penalty. In assessee's case, the claim of the assessee that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9. From the above observations it is clear that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is not sustainable under the Act cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the assessee's income and that mere non-acceptance of claim by the revenue cannot attract any penalty. In assessee's case, the claim of the assessee that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9. From the above observations it is clear that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is not sustainable under the Act cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the assessee's income and that mere non-acceptance of claim by the revenue cannot attract any penalty. In assessee's case, the claim of the assessee that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9. From the above observations it is clear that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is not sustainable under the Act cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the assessee's income and that mere non-acceptance of claim by the revenue cannot attract any penalty. In assessee's case, the claim of the assessee that

COLOUR YELLOW PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as\nwithdrawn

reassessment, without any adverse finding or\naddition, cannot constitute misreporting of income. Therefore, the case is doesn't\nfalls within the section 270A(9

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

270A of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested to be set aside. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A

RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com 78] (BombayHC) is reproduced as under: “ (i) On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of the proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment / reassessment proceedings that

RITESH SINGH ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TREND ELECTRONICS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) (in short the ‘Act’) for AY 2018-19. 2. The core issue The core issue arising in these appeals is narrow and legal arising in these appeals is narrow and legal in character, namely, in character, namely, whether the learned CIT(A) CIT(A) was justified in not adjudicating

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

270A and section 271AAC(1) were\ninitiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under\nsection 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year\n2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid\nsections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A),\nvide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

270A and section 271AAC(1) were\ninitiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under\nsection 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year\n2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid\nsections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A),\nvide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld

NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment year 2017-18, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act were initiated for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO vide separate orders levied penalties under aforesaid sections for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, upheld