CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

New Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…come was assessed under provisions of Section 115JB of the Act as the tax liability was more in computing the book profits. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. [327 ITR 543] submitted that when additions/disallowances were made under normal provisions of the Act and penalty was levied with reference to such additions and ultimately if the income is assessed under book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) will not attract. Ld. Counsel also submitted that CBDT had issued Circular No. 25/2015 in F.No.2…

Kalapataru Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainkalpataru Limited, 101, Kalpataru Synergy, Opposite Grand Hyatt, ……………. Appellant Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055 Pan-Aaack2108G V/S

…be imposed on the basis of disallowance or additions made under the normal provisions and thus in order to support its contentions, Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543(Del.). The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced here under:- “PENALTY- CONCEALMENT OF INCOME -COMPANIES -BOOK PROFITS- TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS LESS THAN BOOK PROFITS-ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 115JB-PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED—INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ss. 115JB, 271(1)(c). Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Genereation Co. Ltd, Mumbai

…isions of the Act on the additions/disallowances made, that after the order of the then FAA the income of the assessee was assessed u/s. 115JB of the Act. He referred to case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Limited (327 ITR 543) and held penalty cannot be levied if the assessment was made under the MAT provisions. 4.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) stated that the matter could be decided on merits. The Authorized Representative (AR) supported the order of the FAA and stated that the AO has made three additions, that in the qu…

Kalpataru Gardens P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2011-12)

…of the Act. Even otherwise, it is sought to be pointed out that the tax liability has been finally determined in terms of Sec. 115JB of the Act, and following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd., 327 ITR 543 (Delhi), no penalty could be imposed with reference to an addition made under the normal provisions of the Act. The learned representative pointed out that such a legal position has even been accepted by the CBDT vide its Circular no. 25/2015 dated 31.12.2015. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has merely relied upon the orders of the authorities b…

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Penford Israel Ltd.(India Branch), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2697/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dy. Cit (International Taxation)-3(3)(2), M/S. Penford Israel Ltd. (India बनाम/ Room No. 1727, 17Th Floor, Branch) Air India Building, Nariman Point, 1102, Prasad Chamber, Opera Vs. Mumbai-400 021 House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp 7258 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajat Mittal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Dixit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 04.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2004- 05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. " Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Penalty U/S. 271(L)(C) Is Not Attracted With Reference To Addition/Disallowance Made Under Normal Provisions ". 2. "Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified That The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S.

…eliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 5. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also deleted the penalty on account of the ratio emanating from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) and CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31.12.2015 issued in this regard. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under: Further the issue is also covered by the Circular of CBDT which has been clarified in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (327 ITR 543 (Del)) referred supra…

Shivalik Ventures P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shivalik Ventures Acit-Cc-4(2), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.746, M.K. Road, Staney Fernandes Wadi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 D.S. Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aalcs7683R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R

…ling the return under section 139(1) but AO did not consider and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (327 ITR 543, 553) wherein the High Court has considered that imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been amended w.e.f. 2015 to cover the situation for levying the penalty whenever the income under normal provision is less and then the income declared for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. This amendment is prospective and applicable w.e.f. 0…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

…nder Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, no additional tax is payable by the assessee on the additions made to the computation as per the normal provisions of the Act, and following the reasoning laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Limited, 327 ITR 543 (Delhi) and, (ii) as per Explanation 4(c) to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, ‘tax sought to be evaded’ is NIL, since no additional tax is payable consequent to the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. to canvass that no penalty is imposable in the present case. Since the appellant has already succeeded in the foregoing paragraphs, the above…

Sezal Glass Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-9(3), Mumbai

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2553/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…s failed to appreciate that: a. Penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) could not be levied in the facts of appellants case as the taxable income was computed u/s. I15JB as per the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Naiwa Sons Investments Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 543 (Delhi) which had been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. b. The appellant had neither concealed the particulars of its income nor had it furnished inaccurate particulars of income; c. The claim of deduction u/s. 801B was made under a bona fide belief that the appellant was eligible for deduction of the entire income of the industrial undertaki…

Axis Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2958/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Axis Capital Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 1St Floor, Axis House Income Tax बनाम/ C-2, Wadia International Centre Central Circle 3(1) 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan P.B.Marg Vs. Worli M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu-8367-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Modi, Ld. Ar’S ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. A.K.Nayak, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 05/06/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement

…ncome. It was further contended that since the assessee paid tax on book profits u/s 115JB, being higher than the normal profits and therefore, no penalty could be levied in view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. [327 ITR 543]. However, not convinced, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR drew our attention to CBDT circular No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/2015 issued in consequence to the cited judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee’s returned income was ‘Nil’ under normal pro…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1379/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बनाम/ Acit (Ltu) – 1 M/S. Gujarat Ambuja World Trade Centre, Cements Ltd. Vs. Centre – 1, 29Th Floor, 122, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad, Jm:

…t views are available thus penalty order was rightly deleted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR for the assessee further relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) and decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del). On the other hand the ld DR for the revenue supported the order of AO and would argue that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and the order of AO may be restored. 5 A.Y.2000-01 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the ld representatives of the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. At the time of filing…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2003-04 being ITA No

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.6596/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(2) बनाम Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacj0920H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.6597/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Dcit-5(2) Jet Airways (India) Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacj0920H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Ms Anu Krishna Aggarwal With Alok Johri (Dr) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Vijaya Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2017 आयकर अ"ध"नयम, 1961 क" धारा 254(1) के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) Per Pawan Singh, J.M. "या"यक सद"य Iou Iou Iou "संह के अनुसार: Iou 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Even Day Of Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 28.08.2014 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2003-04 & 2007-08. 2. In Ita No. 6896/Mum/2014, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…ction 115JB. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the facts held that no penalty on the disallowance/addition under normal provision is liveable. The ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Nalva Sons Investment 327 ITR 543. With regard to the penalty on addition on account of doubtful debts, ld. ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and to buttress his 6 ITA Nos. 6596& 6597/M/2014 Jet Airways (India) Ltd. submission argued that this question was debatable at the time of filing of return of income and the amendment was brought with retrospective…