K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

DCIT, CC -3(4), Cr-3, Mumbai vs. Supreme Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

…MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.2852 & 2853/Mum/2016 (Assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dy. CIT, CC 3(4), Mumbai vs M/s Supreme Infrastructure (I) Ltd 8, Bhavani Service Indl Estate, 3rd Floor Opp. IIT Main Gate, Powai, Mumbai-76 PAN : AAACS7320J APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Ram Tiwari Respondent by Shri Rishabh Shah Date of hearing 24-10-2017 Date of pronouncement 27-10-2017 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate but identical orders of CIT(A…

Harilal Mulukchand Metha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Harilal Mulukchand Mehta Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Flat No.2, Tannar Kutir, Mumbai Vs. Plot No.540, 17Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan Aadpm4219L (Appellant) Respondent)

…ely held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and not of concealment of income; which finding was arrived at also by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 98. In K. C. Builders v. Asst. CIT [2004] 2 SCC 731, this court formulated the following questions for consideration (page 567) : "8. On the above pleadings and facts and circumstances of the case, the following questions of law arise for consideration by this court : (a) Whether a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and prosecution under section 276C of the Income- tax Act…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

…e basis of which penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act remains no more remained in existence, therefore, 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 addition is deleted, there remains no basis at ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

…e basis of which penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act remains no more remained in existence, therefore, 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 addition is deleted, there remains no basis at ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Instruments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit,12(1)(1), R.No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 30, Cd Govt. Industrial Estate, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Aaaca 1032F .... Respondent

…it had produced all the information and evidence requisitioned by the AO with regard to the deduction u/s. 80IB. Therefore, the appellant’s case does not fall within the mischief of the first limb of Sec. 271(1)(c). Reliance is placed on K.C. Builder Vs ACIT (265 ITR 562)(SC), Dilip Shroff Vs JCIT (291 ITR 519 (SC) and Ashok Pai Vs CIT 292 ITR 11 (SC). The appellant had thus contended that its case does not satisfy the second limb viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of Sec. 271(1)(c). The AO has not relied upon any independent material to hook the case of the appellant u/s. 271(1)(c). Thus the pen…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dhl Operations B.V., Netherlands, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…hat the cases involving genuine difference of opinion on matters of law between the assessee and the AO are clearly outside the scope of Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. M/s.DHL Operations BV Netherlands Builders, 265 ITR 562 (SC), has held that mere omission from the return of an item of receipt does neither amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

…r title of the property. 8. For the above discussion, the grievance of the assessee is found to be justified and is accepted as such. The addition of Rs. 75 lacs made by the A.O., as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is cancelled.” In K.C. Builders Vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562, 569 (SC), it 6. has been held that where the additions made in the assessment orders, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a cases no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. 7. In view of the f…