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

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

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

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

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

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

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment on the basis of\nwhich penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set\naside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand\nby itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case\nordered by the Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the\nauthorities

KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP D MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

sections was for providing remedy for loss of Revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable if the AO is satisfied during the course

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. ZIAUDDIN A. SIDDIQUE, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

reassessment order that the assessee is show-caused through the issue of notice as provided under s. 274 of the Act. Thus the penalty proceedings are initiated by issue of notice, and it is this notice under s. 274 which is the subject matter of challenge. In view of the said stated legal position, I am unable to agree with

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

reassessment order. 5.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 10 M/s Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt Ltd. (SC)has held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s.271(l) (c) if he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his Income Tax Return. Hon'ble Supreme Court

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

276C 2. R L Traders Vs ITO (2017-T1OL-2583-HC-DEL- IT) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that citing of past instance or lack of absence of cross-examination, 15 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad cannot vitiate the initiation and culmination of penalty proceedings in case of accommodation entry

SWADESH TEXTILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

reassessment order was passed on the same date and the assessee paid the tax due with interest. The AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty at 300 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) upheld the imposition and the appellate

MS. BINNA NITIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Binna Nitin Parikh V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) W1, Sudantta Apartments Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor 10A Mount Pleasant Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpp1671P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 271(1)(c) does not apply to the case of the appellant. 17. In view of the above, it is submitted that as the assessee has disclosed all the facts and had not concealed the particulars of her income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, it is submitted that the penalty of Rs.3,05,375/- levied u/s.271