1. UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

ACIT CIRCLE-3(3)92), MUMBAI vs. M/S TANIA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT – 3(3)(2) Vs. M/s Tania Industries Room No. 628, 6TH Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 111-A, Raheja MK Road, Mumbai – Chambers, 213 Free 400020. Press Journal Mark, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400002 PAN/GIR No. : AAACT6053D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 07.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LIPI DATA SYSTEM LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Acit- 3 (2) (1), M/S Lipi Data System बनाम/ Room No. 674, 6 Th Floor, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Mittal Chambers, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0916F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी ओर से / Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 09/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 11/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -8 M/S Lipi Data System Ltd. Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271 (1) (C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

…t any basis and the explanation furnished by the assessee for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide triggering Explanation I to section 271 (1)(c of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 5. The appellant prays that the order of C!T(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary.” At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor adjournment petition was filed. We heard the Ld. DR a…

VALUE LINE EQUITIES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNWOAN AS M.S SB & T SECURITIES P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

…the assessee and found that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by relying on the following cases: 1. UOI versus Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) 2. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd 40 DTR 249 (2010) 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) along with detailed submission. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by deleting the penalty on foreign travel expenses by observing that the disallowance is made on ad hoc basis that is at an estima…

DCIT-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TPI INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1792/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Tpi India Ltd. बनाम/ Tax, 102, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct7772P अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18.06.2020

…basis and the explanation furnished by it for making such a TPI India Ltd. claim is not found to be bona fide triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As held by Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010)?.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the amount involved is ₹39,120/- Which is the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on estimated addition and further it is below the prescribed limit of circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes which authorize Revenue not to file the appeal below the tax effect of ₹50 lacs vide circular No.…

AMIT RAJARAM NAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh. Amit Rajaram Nar, The Income-Tax Officer, 604, Kesar Asish Coop.Hsg, Vs. 33(1), Mumbai. Village Mouze, Kndivli, Mumbai-400067. Pan Aecpn5244D. Appellant. Respondent.

…pheld the levy of penalty. In this decision the learned CIT(Appeals) held that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products stood distinguished by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Lt. 40 DTR 249. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the penalty has been levied in this case for disallowance of commission expenses. These commission expenses were provisions in the account. The payment by cheque subsequently in this regard was duly submitted before the AO. However, th…

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSAL CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Universal Chemicals Tax-3(3)(2), Room No. 609, 6Th Vs. & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 507, Raheja Centre, Road, Mumbai-400020. 214, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu0974C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Manish R. Reshmwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

…ly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such claim is not found to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring current year loss at Rs.11,30,84,832/-. In the assessment made u/s 143(3) dated 28.03.2013, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the following additions/disallowances: S.N. Particulars Am…

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1) ( c) of the I.T. Act 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAKData Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013), 358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case the assessment was compled u/s. 143(3) on 24.12.2012 determining total income at ` 4,14,23,101/- by making additions towards disallowance of expenses…

PEGASUS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1) ( c) of the I.T. Act 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAKData Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013), 358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case the assessment was compled u/s. 143(3) on 24.12.2012 determining total income at ` 4,14,23,101/- by making additions towards disallowance of expenses…

ITO 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAK CONSTRUCITON PROJECT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito-3(3)(1), M/S Rak Construction Project Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd. 113-A, Mittal Tower, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aacck8147P Appellant Respondent

…oject Pvt. Ltd. triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013),358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed on 05.10.2015 under section 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 33,07,090/-. The assessing officer made addition under the head “Income from House Proper…

THE MANJIRI STUD FARM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner Of 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Income Tax, Circle 2, फनधभ/ Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Colaba, M K Road, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “फी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner of 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Income Tax, Circle 2, फनधभ/ Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Colaba, M K Road, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ PAN : AAACT1947J (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Assessee by : Shri J D Mistri, Sr.Ad…

ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS TRANSWORKS INFORMATION SERVICES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

…r of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA.Before him it made elaborate submissions. After considering the assessment order, penalty order and the submissions of the assessee, the FAA referred to the cases of Zoom Communication Private Ltd.(40 DTR 249) NathuLal 7979/M/11(04-05)- Aditya Birla Minacs Agarwal and Sons (150 ITR 292)and Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and confirmed the levy of penalty. 3.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had admitted a substantial question of law with regard to the quantum appeal,tha…

MAHINDRA FIRST CHOICE WHEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1801/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Mahindra First Choice Income Tax Officer- Range बनाम/ Wheels Ltd., (Formerly 2(1)(1), V. Automart India Limited), Aayakar Bhawan, 1006, 10 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Dlh Park, Mumbai – 400 020. S.V. Road, Near Goregaon Telephone Exchange, Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 062. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaccm0794N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…which is not allowable. Therefore, on the assessee’s contention that disallowance/additions does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, I am convinced that the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010) is aptly applicable in this case whereby the Hon'ble High Court has clearly stated that the "assessee claimed that due to oversight, these amount were not added back in the computation of income - if one takes the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee woul…