CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers

368 ITR 722High Court2014#1426 most cited

What is CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the quantum appeal is pending before the High Court or where a quantum addition is confirmed and a question of law is admitted by the High Court.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nayan Builders and Developers · CIT v Nayan Builders · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · quantum appeal pending · High Court · furnishing inaccurate particulars · levy of penalty · section 274 · deletion of penalty · appeal pending High Court

Also reported as

231 Taxmann 66556 Taxmann.com 335

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 274Section 144CSection 28(v)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 28(v)section 276csection 276section 40a(2)(a)dependent agent peagency pefixed place pedeletion of penaltyinterest on interestfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)royalty income

Judgments citing CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers

M/S Asphalt India Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 2530/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not warranted. In fact, in the case of M/s. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court had noticed that the Tribunal had not only followed its earlier decision in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers, 368 ITR 722 (Bom), but also the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Liquid Investment and Trading Co. in ITA No. 240 of 2099 dated 5.10.2010 to delete the penalty. Thus, by considering the aforesaid aspect also, the present penalty imposed by the lower authorities is unsustainable. 9. Another pertinent point which has been vehemently bro…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 1987-88 & 1998-99 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD-II) C/o- Pandya Gandhi & Co. बनाम/ CR-7, Advocates & Solicitors, 4th Floor, Vs. Adore House, Aayakar Bhavan, K. Dubash Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACD5580D ITA NOs.3831 & 3832 /Mum/2009 Asses…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 382/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 381/IND/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 380/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 379/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 378/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 377/IND/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

M/S. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/IND/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI O.P. MEENA, AM ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015 A.Yd. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s. M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal PAN - AAAAM 1067 A :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal :: Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, CAs Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, CIT Date of hearing 01.3.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.3.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH The above appeals filed by the assessee are against the common & consolidated order of the learn…

Diamonds Investments & Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1501/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1501/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S Diamond Investments बनधम/ Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) & Properties, Mumbai (Jurisdiction Changed To Vs. 1St Floor, Diamond Palace, Ito -23 (1), Mumbai. Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aadfd2804Q अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hariom Tulsiyan प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Shivaji Ghode सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 9.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :18.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.1.2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.49,17,063/- Levied By The Ao On Addition Made On The Following Grounds Even Though; A) The Department Did Not Possess Any Incriminating Material To Establish Concealment Of Income By The Appellant & There Was 2 1501/Mum/2015

Section 271Section 271(1)

…urisdictional High Court the issues have become debatable and therefore the penalty be deleted and in advance of his arguments, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Nayan Builders and Developers (2014) 368 ITR 722(Bom). On the basis of this decision of Jurisdictional High Court, the ld.AR submitted that the penalty be deleted. 3 1501/Mum/2015 The ld. AR also submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO on the disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee and paid to Arjun Centre on the ground that onus was on the assessee to prove the above…

JCIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Power Company Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) is dismissed

ITA 1569/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishijcit, Noida Power Company Ltd., Range-3, Commercial Complex, Vs. Noida H-Block, Sector-Alpha-Ii, Greater Noida, Pan:Aacn4984D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv
Section 115JSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law is framed by Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A of the Act it shows that the issue is debatable and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 has also held that where High Court admitted substantial question of law in respect of which penalty was levied the impugned order of penalty was to be deleted. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court we hold that when the issue is admitted by Hon’ble High Court as substantial question of law in the case of the asses…

3I Infotech Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…above that the Hon’ble High Court has accepted the substantial question of law against the said disallowance, therefore, assessee’s claim has become debatable. In view of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers, 368 ITR 722, it was held that when the substantial question of law has been admitted, no penalty should be imposed with respect to such disallowance/addition. 6. We also found from the quantum order of the Tribunal in earlier years that the Tribunal have held that expenditure incurred by the assessee and treated as work-in-progress, are capital expenditure a…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5556/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…f law has been framed and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court as held in the case of CIT-II vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (ITA 240/2009) (Del.) (HC). 9. The issue also arose before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nayan Builders, 368 ITR 722 wherein the court found that the appeal of the Revenue/Department could not be entertained as it did not raise any substantial question of I.T.A. No. 5556/Del/2011 Assessment Year 2005-06 law. In the said case the addition of income of Rs. 1,04,76,050 and disallowance of expenses of Rs.10,79,221 on brokerage and Rs. 2,00,000 on legal fees made…

ADIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Known As Linklater & Paines), Mumbai

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7081/Mum/2005,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1996-97 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT-(IT)…

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court the issue had become debatable,that the penalty was not leviable for non deduction of TDS and contravention of provisions of section 194H of the Act.He relied upon the case of Nayan Builders and Developers(368 ITR 722)of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the AO had made additions on account of contraventions of section 194H and not incurring expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes,that he…

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3705/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court the issue had become debatable,that the penalty was not leviable for non deduction of TDS and contravention of provisions of section 194H of the Act.He relied upon the case of Nayan Builders and Developers(368 ITR 722)of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the AO had made additions on account of contraventions of section 194H and not incurring expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes,that he…

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4903/MUM/2005[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1993-1994
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.4903/M/2005,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1993-94 ICICI Bank Limited DCIT- Range-3(1) (erstwhile ICICI Limited) Aayakar Bhavan ICICI Bank Towers Vs M.K. Road Bandra-Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Bandra (East)Mumbai-400 051. PAN:AAACT 1398 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy…

Uhde India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG.10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2641/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran,Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2641/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04)

Section 271(1)

…therefore, in the said circumstances no action against the assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) is required to be taken. In support of this contentions the ld. AR has placed reliance on the following case law: a) CIT V/s Nayan Builders and Developers (368 ITR 722)(Bom); b) Schrader Duncan Ltd V/s Addl.CIT (2015)37 ITR (Trib)674(Mumbai); c) M/s Westin Hospitality Services P.Ltd. V/s DCIT in ITA No.1274&1275/M/2013 (AYs-2002-03 and 2001-02) order dated 27.8.2014; d) Advaita Estate Development P Ltd V/s ITO (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 112 (Mum); e) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (…

Industrial Investment Trust Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3947/MUM/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1995-96 Industrial Investment Trust Ltd., Dcit-2(2), Raj Bahadur Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaaci1262R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1996-97 Industrial Investment Trust Ltd., Dcit-2(2), Raj Bahadur Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaaci1262R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…and ITA No. 640/Mum/2008 and appeal for AY 1995-96 has been accepted by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 01.08.2008. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee further argued that as per the decision of Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Dated 24.07.2014 reported viz 368 ITR 722(Bom) wherein it has held that once the substantial question of law is accepted in respect of the addition so made in the assessment, no penalty should be imposed u/s 271(c) of the Act, the ld. 5. The Ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate bench of Bombay Tribunal in ITA No. 942/Mum/12, titled as M/s N Vensimal Sec…

Industrial Investment Trust Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3946/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1995-96 Industrial Investment Trust Ltd., Dcit-2(2), Raj Bahadur Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaaci1262R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1996-97 Industrial Investment Trust Ltd., Dcit-2(2), Raj Bahadur Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaaci1262R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…and ITA No. 640/Mum/2008 and appeal for AY 1995-96 has been accepted by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 01.08.2008. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee further argued that as per the decision of Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Dated 24.07.2014 reported viz 368 ITR 722(Bom) wherein it has held that once the substantial question of law is accepted in respect of the addition so made in the assessment, no penalty should be imposed u/s 271(c) of the Act, the ld. 5. The Ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate bench of Bombay Tribunal in ITA No. 942/Mum/12, titled as M/s N Vensimal Sec…