CIT v. Sreenivasa Rai (Kerala)

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

…f the assessment proceeding that the assessee came forward to disclose the said discrepancy. The ld. DR 4 Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy CIT relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sreenivasa Pai [2000] 242 ITR 29 (Ker.), wherein it was held that while computing the total income, the amount added or disallowed is deemed to represent the income and that the same would amount to concealment. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the…

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

…operation in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person, when there is failure to offer any explanation, or an explanation offered is found to be false, or not substantiated as held in the case of CIT Vs A Sreenivas Pai 242 ITR 29 (Kerala), The Honble Kerala High Court further held that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed. As per the provisions of the Explanation 1, the onus to establish that the explanation coffered was bona fide and all facts relating to the…

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

…operation in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person, when there is failure to offer any explanation, or an explanation offered is found to be false, or not substantiated as held in the case of CIT Vs A Sreenivas Pai 242 ITR 29 (Kerala), The Honble Kerala High Court further held that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed. As per the provisions of the Explanation 1, the onus to establish that the explanation coffered was bona fide and all facts relating to the…

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

…operation in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person, when there is failure to offer any explanation, or an explanation offered is found to be false, or not substantiated as held in the case of CIT Vs A Sreenivas Pai 242 ITR 29 (Kerala), The Honble Kerala High Court further held that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed. As per the provisions of the Explanation 1, the onus to establish that the explanation coffered was bona fide and all facts relating to the…

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…tion i'ri respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person, when there is failure to offer any explanation, or an explanation offered is found to be false, or not substantiated, as held in the case of CIT Vs. A Sreenivasa Pai 242 ITR 29 (Kerala). The Hon'ble Kerala High Court further held that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed. As per the provisions of the Explanation 1, the onus to establish that the explanation offered was bona fide "and all facts relating to the…

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ginal return. Such an issue was specifically dealt with and decided against the assessee in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT TC50R.570, S.R. Arulprakasam vs. Smt. Prema Malini Vasan, ITO and Dayabhai Girdharbhai vs. CIT and CIT vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai (2000) 242 ITR 29 (Ker). Where assessee had concealed income even in revised return and his explanation had been found to be false on facts, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was justified. [New United Construction Co. vs. CIT (2004) 270 ITR 214 (Jharkhand)]. Where original return is neither under s. 139(1) or under s. 139(2) but is a return filed under s. 139(4) which co…

BERMACO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, TTC Industries Area, of Income Tax MIDC, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No.AAACB4325J Assessee by .. Ms. Shraddha Gor, AR Revenue by .. Kumar Sanjay, Ld. CIT DR Date of hearing .. 05-10-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 10-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 Mumbai [in short CIT(A)]…

MIHIR AGENCIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7534/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7536/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7537/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabch 7898 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 31/10/2014 Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Ay.S.The Only Issue In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.As The Appeals Deal With The Same Issue,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience Same Are Being Decided By A Single Common Order.

…t hand.In the meanwhile,the AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) after the confirmation of the quantum addition by the FAA. 4.Challenging the penalty order of the AO the assessee referred to the cases of Reliance Petro Products Ltd.(322 ITR 158), Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and Durga Timber Works(79 ITR 63)and contended that it had declared 0.15% income from its activities, that the third parties also confirmed the assessee was getting commission of same percent, that the AO had applied rate of 2%,that the Tribunal had reduced the rate to 0.15%,when income was assessed on estimate basis no concealment penalty could…

MUKESH CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC (46), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा 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 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

…hand. In the meanwhile,the AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) after the confirmation of the quantum addition by the F AA. 4.Challenging the penalty order of the AO the assessee referred to the cases of Reliance Petro Products Ltd.(322 ITR 158), Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and Durga Timber Works(79 ITR 63) and contended that it had declared 0.15% income 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh from its activities, that the third parties also confirmed the assessee was getting commission of same percent, that the AO had applied rate of 2%, that the Tribunal had reduced the rate to 0.15%,when income was assessed on estimate b…

MIHIR AGENCIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 46, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा 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 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

…hand. In the meanwhile,the AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) after the confirmation of the quantum addition by the F AA. 4.Challenging the penalty order of the AO the assessee referred to the cases of Reliance Petro Products Ltd.(322 ITR 158), Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and Durga Timber Works(79 ITR 63) and contended that it had declared 0.15% income 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh from its activities, that the third parties also confirmed the assessee was getting commission of same percent, that the AO had applied rate of 2%, that the Tribunal had reduced the rate to 0.15%,when income was assessed on estimate b…

AMISH R. KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

…rance of probabilities. He, accordingly, levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, relying on the following decisions: CIT vs. M/s. Dharmendra Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); CIT vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai [2000] 242 ITR 29 (Ker); Addl. CIT vs. Bhartiya Bhandar [1980] 122 ITR 622 (MP); Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); and Durga Timber Works vs. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 63 (Del). The same was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), meeting the assessee’s argument of both sections 68 & 69 being not applicable, relying on the order by the tribunal on quantum…