Brij Mohan v. CIT

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

…l Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2018) 254 TAXMAN 0241 (Bombay) on 5th March 2018 has also held that such a transaction requires TP adjustment. b) It is settled position of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT reported in 120 ITR 1 and CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons reported in 195 ITR I that law on the date of filing the return should be seen for adjudicating whether penalty should be levied. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that at the point of filing of return of income, the issue was a debatable one and has achieved finality much later. Further the TP provisions were f…

Gagan Ashok Khemka, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodshri Gagan Ashok Khemka Asst. Cit, Circle-21(1) 101 Kapadia Apartment, C-10, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Vile Parle West, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai – 400 056 Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Adtpk4224E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Narayan Atal, A.R Respondent By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2020

…ould not have been imposed. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had Shri Gagan Ashok Khemka Vs. ACIT, Circle-21(1) 4 ITA No. 458/Mum/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC). 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the assessee had raised a wrong claim of „set off‟ of the brought forward loss on derivatives of the preceding year i.e A.Y 2009- 10, therefore, he had rightly been visited with penalty u…

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

…ply where the charge against the appellant is concealment of particulars of income. Concealment lakes place on the date when return is filed without disclosing the particulars of income of that year as held by the Apex court in the case of Brijmohan Vs. CIT - 120 ITR 1 SC It is further held that the law which prevails on the date of filing such return would be applicable for levy of such penalty. Impliedly, it would mean that offence of concealment cannot be said to have committed before filing of the return. 4.3.3 (e). Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(11(c) cannot be applied where charge against the appellant is furnis…

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

…ply where the charge against the appellant is concealment of particulars of income. Concealment lakes place on the date when return is filed without disclosing the particulars of income of that year as held by the Apex court in the case of Brijmohan Vs. CIT - 120 ITR 1 SC It is further held that the law which prevails on the date of filing such return would be applicable for levy of such penalty. Impliedly, it would mean that offence of concealment cannot be said to have committed before filing of the return. 4.3.3 (e). Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(11(c) cannot be applied where charge against the appellant is furnis…

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

…ply where the charge against the appellant is concealment of particulars of income. Concealment lakes place on the date when return is filed without disclosing the particulars of income of that year as held by the Apex court in the case of Brijmohan Vs. CIT - 120 ITR 1 SC It is further held that the law which prevails on the date of filing such return would be applicable for levy of such penalty. Impliedly, it would mean that offence of concealment cannot be said to have committed before filing of the return. 4.3.3 (e). Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(11(c) cannot be applied where charge against the appellant is furnis…

Aasia Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7541/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Asia Exports बिधम/ Acit 11(1) Hinduja House, 171, Dr Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd Vs. A.B. Rd, Worli Mumbai Pin:400018 Mumbai Pin:400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa6680N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. J.P. Bairagra (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.10.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1998-99 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed.

…h Courts and Tribunal in the cases title as T. Ashok Paif Vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) SC, Chempure Vs. ITO (40 SOT 164), CIT Vs. Shivlal Desai & Sons 114 ITR 377, CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 2010, 327 ITR 510/191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) Brij Mohan Vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 & CIT v/s Reliance Petro products(P)Ltd (2010) 322ITR. In view of the said law no ITA. No. 7541/M/2012 A.Y. 1998-99 penalty is levied because it cannot be said that there is a concealment of income furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. The other disallowance is in connection with the hotel expenses to the tune of Rs.22,60,633/-, where t…

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Dembla Valves Ltd, Bhiwandi

In the result, penalty deleted by the CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Dembla Valves Ltd., Central Circle-1, Kalyan, Income C-30, Jai Matadi Compound Tax Office, 1St Floor, Mohan Thane-Bhiwandi-Agra Road Vs. Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Thane, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Kalyan-421301, Mumbai-421301 Pan No.Aaacd9909J Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Prasad Bapat, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 17-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 24-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…h is not found to be false. The mere fact that the assessee agreed to pay tax and did not challenge the assessment order does not mean that his conduct is mala fide. v. The appellant further stated that the AO placed reliance in the case of Bnjmohan Vs CIT1 120 ITR 1 is not relevant in the case of the appellant in as much as the said decision was about the timing of applicability of the prevailing law at relevant time in different situations as can be appreciated by your honour from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court. vi. The appellant further reiterated that they had accepted for agreed additions to av…