Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Redstar, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. Even the learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, as there…

ACIT, Circle - 32 (3), Mumbai vs. Ravikiran Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the p…

ACIT 13 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Remi Electrotechnik Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the p…

ITO 13 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reinfibre Products India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. Even the learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, as there…

ITO 32 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rahul Narendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7 Rahul Narendra Shah The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any 10. cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no conceal…

ITO 32(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Jitendra Kumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any 8. cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the p…

ITO, Ward - 3 (1), Kalyan vs. Bhagwattilal Mithalal Patwari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal file by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhito, Ward 3(1) Shri Bhagwattilal Meethalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Patwari, Prop. Of M/S National Laminates, Murbad Road, Kalyan (West) Vs. Shop No. 8, Nerurkar Building, 421301 Manpada Road, Dombivali (E), 421201 Pan – Amvpp3140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…upon the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 7051); and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250; and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519; and CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Undoubtedly, the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in case where the income has been estimated. In this regard we also find support of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 164 CTR 2009 (Guj). We nowhere found any ITA…

ITO 29(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dharmesh Vinaykumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any 7. cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was 5 Shri Dharmesh Vinaykumar Shah indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was…

Income Tax Officer 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dytex Seals India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…nt (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); 5 Dytex Seals India Pvt. Ltd. iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 9. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions relied upon as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and additions made on estimation…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/s. Sai Samarth Enterprises DCIT-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABUFS9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue by: Shri T…

Sunil B Vorani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(3) (4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…sioner of Income-tax v. P. Roles (Mad), vi) Naresh Chand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (All). vii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. H. I. Seeds India Ltd., 120081 301 ITR 0013—(DeI). viii) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7 I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2019 Sunil B. Vorani 8. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and while considering the series of judgments as mentioned above, we are of the view that there is no active concealment of income on the part of the assessee and additions made on estimation by the AO do not called for initiation of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-(3)3, Thane vs. M/S. Sachin Engineering Work, Thane

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5014/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–3(3), Mumbai v/s M/s. Sachin Engineering Work 375/B, Soparkar Industries Compound Road no.15, Opp. Pipe Line ……………. Respondent Wagle Industries Estate Thane 400 604 PAN – ABEFS5157R Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Assessee by : None Date of Hearing – 23.02.2021 Date of Order – 09.03.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue cha…

ITO Ward 3(3), Thane vs. M/S Singh Infrastructure Developers, Mumbai

In the result revenues 's appeal is dismissed

…e sales. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under :- 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

ITO Ward 1 (5), Thane vs. M/S Durosharp Knives, Thane

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Ward 1(5), M/S. Durosharp Knives, Ashar It Park, 2 Devendra Industrial 6Th Floor, B Wing, Vs. Estate Lokmanya Nagar R.No.14, Wgale Industrial Pada No.2, Estate Thane (West), Thane – 400 604 Thane - 400604 Pan: Aabfd8125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Jaiswal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2020 O R D E R

…ann.com 250 wherein it has been held that the mere fact that assessee has agreed to pay the tax and did not challenge the assessment order can not be construed as malafide. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 by holding that assessment proceedings can not be automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and authorities have to consider the matter from different angle. The Ld. CIT(A) finally relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 2010 322 ITR 158 SC wherein it has been held that where the assesse…

ITO WD 1(4), Thane vs. Smt Maya A. Rohra, Thane

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

…mt. Maya Anandprakash Rohra appellant and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. Hence the addition to income has been sustained on estimation basis. 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

Vinay Girdhari Motwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Giridhari Motwani V. Acit – 17(3) Elegant Apartment 3, Sobani Road Aayakar Bhavan Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadpm3598G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department By : M. Samatha

…rprises v. ITO [60 ITR(Trib.) 252]. In the case of DCIT v. Shri Dhaval D. Shah in ITA.No. 1337/Mum/2016 & C.O.No.08/Mum/2018 dated 16.05.2018 the Coordinate Bench considered similar and identical issue and following the ratio laid down in the Dilip N. Shroff [210 CTR 228 (SC)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery (supra) held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 8. We further find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the case of Pr.CIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 2…