CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd.

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Metmin Investments & Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Metmin Investments & Room No. 674, Trading Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 161/162, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400 020 A Wing, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021

…on identical facts the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Sudarshan Fiscal Services (P) Ltd. [4 ITR (Trib.) 532] deleted the penalty following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi court in the case of CIT v. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd. [310 ITR 121] holding that mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. Similarly Learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the Mumbai bench in the case of ITO v. GACL Finance Limited [30 SOT 360] and the decision of the ITAT Calcutta Bench in the…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Metmin Finance & Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Metmin Investments & Room No. 674, Trading Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 161/162, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400 020 A Wing, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021

…on identical facts the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Sudarshan Fiscal Services (P) Ltd. [4 ITR (Trib.) 532] deleted the penalty following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi court in the case of CIT v. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd. [310 ITR 121] holding that mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. Similarly Learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the Mumbai bench in the case of ITO v. GACL Finance Limited [30 SOT 360] and the decision of the ITAT Calcutta Bench in the…

Kumar S. Taurani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…ore us, the learned counsel of the assessee relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 121 (Del). 6. The learned DR supports the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or w…

ACIT -33(1), Mumbai vs. Amit P. Pandva, Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “अई मुंबई अई अई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ अई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3078/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Asstt. CIT-33(1) Shri Amit P. Pandya Room No.308, 3rd Floor, B/101,, 1st Floor, Shyamkunj, Poisar Bldg. No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. Gymkhana Road, Mahavir Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex,…

Chilamika Lalini Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannumrs. Chilamika Lalini Hariani, C/O. Grew Industries Pvt. Ltd., 202A, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan:Aaaph 7884B ... Appellant Vs. The Ito , Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

…ate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the time of hearing Ld. Representative for the assessee had referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Auric Investment & Securities Limited, 310 ITR 121(Del), wherein penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was found to be untenable in a case, where the business loss returned by the assessee was found to be assessable as speculation loss. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted that requisite information as required by the income tax authorities was furnished by the assessee and none of it w…

Lenient Finvest P . Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am M/S. Lenient Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Known As M/S. Leesha Ward-2 (2) 2, Mumbai, Investment Finvest Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Crescent Chambers, 3 Rd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai 56, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 Pan: Aaacl 1823 B .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadher, Ars Respondent By Shri S. C. Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing 15-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 22-06-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (A)-5, Mumbai Passed In Appeal No.Cit (A)-5/Ito 2(2)(2)/It-16/2011-2012 Dated 29-11-2012. Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Ward -2(2) (2), Mumbai For Assessment Year 2001- 02 Vide His Order Dated 20-12-2008 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Read With Section 254C Of The Act. The Penalty Under Dispute Was Levied By The Ito, Ward- 2(2) (2), Mumbai U/S 271 (1) (C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 29-03-2006. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A) Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271 (1) (C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.20,04,501/-.

…nstead of speculation loss, is not sustainable on the merits, learned counsel for the assessee has made various submissions and has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements. In one of such cases namely CIT Vs. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 121 (Del), a similar issue involving the identical facts had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the said case, a return was filed by the assessee declaring the loss of Rs.23,05,096. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the loss claimed by the assessee was speculative in nature which could be al…