PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 1997-98. Since similar issues are involved and these appeals were heard together, they are being disposed off by way of this common order. M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 Assessment Year 1996-97 2.1.1 The assessee, engaged in the business

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

section 271(1)(c) in this case. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied.” 7. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered under identical circumstances, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,68,596/- on the final addition sustained at Rs. 16,72,834/-. The ld. CIT(A) without discussing the issue on merits held that even in the case of an estimate, Explanation to Section

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,68,596/- on the final addition sustained at Rs. 16,72,834/-. The ld. CIT(A) without discussing the issue on merits held that even in the case of an estimate, Explanation to Section

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO vide order dated 27.09.2013 levied penalty of `9,29,562/- on four additions/disallowances aggregating to `25,31,284/- which are listed hereunder: - `10,29,364/- (i) Income from House Property on Mehar-Dad Property `5,68

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

271(1)(c) on account o f a s s e s s e e a c c e p t i n g l o n g t e r m c a p i t a l g a i n o f R s . 40,79,195/- requires to be deleted as the assessee has demonstrated beyond

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

68,101/- as on 01.04.2012 related to capitalization of steel purchase in AY. 2003-04 was disallowed. Both the CIT(A) as well as ITAT upheld the disallowance on depreciation on steel purchase. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) on the issue was rightly initiated.\nThe AO referred to the provisions of section 271

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income.” 5. But no penalty was initiated in regard to addition on account of purchases debited as correction charges, disallowed at ₹1,36,101/-. However, on 01.12.2011 the Assessing Officer issued corrigendum Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; AY 09-10 cum order under section

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

68 of the Act to income computed under normal provisions of the Act. Further, even after additions, the tax payable under normal provisions of the Act is less than, the tax payable under the provisions of section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that penalty u/s 271(1

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.21,07,00,000/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has deleted the penalty by allowing

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the Legislature that it is meant to be deterrent to tax evasion is evidenced by the increase in the quantum of penalty, from 20 per cent under the 1922 Act to 300 per cent

DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. UNISYNTH CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act be upheld and Revenue’s appeal dismissed. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of Rs.14,53,833/- holding

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

68,331/- were in the nature of bad debts written off and therefore, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return of income had expired, and therefore, the Appellant filed revised computation of income