K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

Damask Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanm/S. Damask Projects Pvt. Ltd. 167, Readymoney Terrace Dr. Annie Besant Road ……………. Appellant Worli Naka, Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaccd5994P V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(2), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Firoz B. Andhyarujina Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…e Act the original assessment order was not in existence the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) K.C. Builders v/s ACIT, [2004] 265 ITR 562; and CIT v/s S.M.J. Builders [2003] 262 ITR 60 Bom. ii) 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, in the show cause notice dated 7th December 2011, issued under section 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not indicated the specific limb of penalty provision of section…

Anjani Agrico Implements Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2000-01 Anjani Agrico Implements Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 302, Standard House, 83, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabca1949A

…e addition of Rs.55,71,480/- made under section 68 of the Act. Since, the addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed remained no more in existence, the penalty will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, because, of its own, the penalty cannot stand on its legs when 12 addition on the basis of which the penalty was…

Tata Motors Ltd (Successor to Tata Finance Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 1999-2000 Tata Motors Ltd. Acit-2(3) (Successor To Tata Finance Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ltd.), Bombay House, 24, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaact2727Q

…o be deleted. We find merit in the contention the ld. counsel for the assessee. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum 6 Tata Motors Ltd. (Successor to Tata Finance Ltd.) addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, because, of its own, the penalty cannot stand on its legs wh…

Bfil Finance Limited (Formerly Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd), Mumbai vs. I.T.O.1(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 Bfil Finance Ltd. (Formerly The Income-Tax Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Vs. Officer-1(1)-1 Investment Ltd.) Eucharistic Aayakar Bhavan, Congress Building No. 1, 4Th Maharshi Karve Road, Floor, 5, Convent Street, Mumbai-400020. Colaba, Mumbai-400039. Pan No. Aaaci3193H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. F. V. Irani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/03/2018

…Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs.34,65,465/- on leased assets has been set aside and the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for a de novo order. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562,569 (SC) that where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no BFIL Finance Ltd. cancelled. Similar is the position in case the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. In view of the above position of law, the penalt…

Vimal Kumar Rathi, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6308/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Shri Vimal Kumar Rathi Ito-Ward 25(3)(5), C/O. G. P. Mehta & Co., Cas, C-10, Bkc, Bandra (E), बनाम/ 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Mumbai Vs. 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpr 3676 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. P. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 17.4.2014 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2002- 03. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 01. The Orders Passed By The Learned Lower Authorities Are Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 02. The Learned Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Holding That Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271 (1) (C )

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एफ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6308/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Shri Vimal Kumar Rathi ITO-Ward 25(3)(5), C/o. G. P. Mehta & Co., CAS, C-10, BKC, Bandra (E), बनाम/ 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Mumbai Vs. 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABPR 3676 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. P. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.0…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-2 M/S Salasar Developers Room No. 27 6Th Floor, Ashar Vs. Ground Floor, It Park, B-Wing, Midc, Vrindavan Salasar Wagle Indl. Estate Brijbhoomi, Temba Thane (W)-400604 Hospital Road, Bhayander (W), Dist. Thane-401101 Pan No. Aakfs6465R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nirav Vora, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2018

…t in the quantum addition made by the AO in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment years, the ITAT ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai in ITA No. 4511 to 4513/Mum/2014 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It has been held in K.C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562, 569 (SC) that when an order of assessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set aside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled. In view of the above position of law, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. Order pr…