CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

Govardhan G Vanani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

…he present case are distinguishable from the facts of the cases relied upon by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, cannot derive any support from these decisions. 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt Ltd. (2O10) 327 ITR 510 has, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd., held that if the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is wholly without any basis and the explanation offered by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1) c would c…

Abida Mohammed Rakhangi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi Ito-18(2)(4), Room No. 109, (Through L/Heirs S/Ssh. Mukhtiar 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, बिधम/ Rakhangi, Azim Rakhangi & Salim Lalbaug, Parel, Rakhangi, C/O Rakhangi Gas Service, Mumbai-400012 Vs. 22, Muslim Cemetry, S.B. Marg, Near Rakhangi Chowl, Lower Parel. Mumbai- 400013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabpr1071K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 775/Mum/2014 AY. 2008-09 Late Smt. Abida Mohmmad Rakhangi Vs. ITO-18(2)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi ITO-18(2)(4), Room No. 109, (through L/heirs S/ssh. Mukhtiar 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, बिधम/ Rakhangi, Azim Rakhangi & Salim Lalbaug, Parel, Rakhangi, C/o Rakhangi Gas Service, Mumbai-400012 Vs. 22, Muslim Cemetry, S.B. Marg, Near Rakhangi Chowl, Lower Parel. Mumbai- 400013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABPR1071K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की…

Aishwariya Fashion Couture, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2) (Erswhtile), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Aishwariya Fashion Erstwhile Acit 15(2), Couture, Shop No. 1, बिधम/ Now Acit 25(2)(1), Bkc, Abu Baker Chawl, Mumbai Vs. Irla Society Rd, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 056 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aalfa4309H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…ive home his contention that the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c), which thereafter had been upheld by the CIT(A), placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have perused the copy of the ‘Show cause’ notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 14.12.2009 (Page 6-7 ‘APB’). We may herein observe that a…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

…enalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) which was imposed by the A.O on the basis of a well reasoned order. The ld. D.R in order to fortify his aforesaid claim relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Ltd (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). The ld. D.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement submitted that as held by the Hon'ble High Court, if the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, then the Explanation 1 to Sec. 271…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Dilip C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir -11, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was pleaded that at least the penalty to the extent of figures of sales may be confirmed. It was pleaded that the assessee was indulged in Hawala activities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 3 Dilip C. Shah for the assessee, Shri Gaurav Kabra, contended that no penalty can be upheld where protective addition has been made, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2014) Bhailal Manilal Patel vs CIT 49 taxman.com 539(Guj.).…

Zenriba Estates & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

…ad debt was not apparent from the record. The case laws cited by the appellant are therefore distinguishable and considering the facts of the case, the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is hereby confirmed. CIT VS Zoom Communications Pvt Ltd 327 ITR 510 (Del) is relied upon.” 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained as the addition on which penalty has been levied by the AO is finally deleted by the ITAT in quantum proceedings in ITA No.5105/Mum/2013 dated 08- 11-2011, wherein the ITAT has deleted total addit…