Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 1987-88 & 1998-99 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD-II) C/o- Pandya Gandhi & Co. बनाम/ CR-7, Advocates & Solicitors, 4th Floor, Vs. Adore House, Aayakar Bhavan, K. Dubash Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACD5580D ITA NOs.3831 & 3832 /Mum/2009 Asses…

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir-40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 3189/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2005-06) Triumph Securities Ltd. ACIT, CC-40 Radha Bhavan Vs. Mumbai 1st Floor, 121 Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai-400023. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACT2152P Assessee by Shri R.S. Khandelwal & Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department by Dr.P Daniel Date of Hearing 6.3.2017 Date of Pronouncement 6.3.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the learned CIT(A)-36, Mumbai…

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “I” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), v. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AFUPD1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : M…

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “I” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), v. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AFUPD1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : M…

Kashinath Laxman Marde, Palghar vs. ITO WD 3, Palghar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5369/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Kashinath Laxman बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Ward Marde (2) Vs. Mangalpada, Palghar Near Kirtari Bunglow, Dahanu Fort, Dahanu, Dist. – Palghar, 401602 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahhpm7218G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

…ax on the assurance of the Officer to not to levy the penalty, therefore, the penalty is not liable to be leviable in accordance with law. This contention of the assessee has been assailed by the Departmental and placed reliance upon the law settled in [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the Ld DR for Revenue parties and perusing the record carefully, it came into the notice that the ITA No.5369.M.15 A.Y. 2009-10 assessee did not disclose the sale proceed of the car if any in his return. The case was selected for scrutiny under C…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vadinar Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaind C I T – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vadinar Properties Ltd. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Essar House, 11 K.K. Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400034 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaccv2528B Appellant Respondent

…he learned CIT(A) holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the AO to be unsustainable and in deleting the same. We hold and direct accordingly. 2.3.2 In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), relied on by Revenue, the Hon'ble Court while considering the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act observed that the general principles of law in respect of penalty for concealment of income, does not grant the assessee immunity from penalty on account of surrender or voluntary disclosure of income. As per the provisi…

Technocrats Security Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S. Technocrats Security बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner Of Systems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 9(3) Vs. Unit C-2, Model Industrial Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colony, Vishweshwar Nagar, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Aarey Road, Goaregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct3068M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

…ustries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 11.12.2013. However, on the other and the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question and placed reliance upon the law settled in [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. With due regard to the contentions raised by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record carefully, it came into the notice that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 24.01.2013 added the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.27,02,126/- as income of the assessee…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Unisynth Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

…of penalty proceedings, does not absolve the assessee from liability or penalty. In support of this proposition the learned D.R. placed reliance on 4 M/s. Unisynth Chemicals the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). 3.3.1 Per contra, the Ld. Representative for the assessee placed strong support on the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Representative for the assessee reiterated the factual submissions and legal propositions put forth by it before the CIT(…

Rashid D Lakdawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5757/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10) बनधम/ Rashid D Lakdawala, Income Tax Officer 20(2)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, C/O Citizen Timber Marg, Vs. Satellite 2, Opp Garden Gate, Piramal Chambers, Film City Road, Jijibhoy Lane, Goregaon East, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai--400063 Mumbai-400012 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aabpl6186F अपीऱार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 4.7.2015 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-31, Mumbai Sustaining The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Despite Service Of Notice Through Rpad None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Appointed Date Of Hearing , We, Therefore, Proceed To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte On Merit After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

…and relying on the various decisions such as Hon’ble Delhi High 3 Court in the case of Zoom Communications P Ltd 327 ITR 510 (Del), Bhairav lal Verma V/s Union of India (230 ITR 855), N D Shroff (Smaller HUF) V/s JCIT (82 TTJ (Mum) 626, and CIT V/s MAK Data (358 ITR 593) the observations and finding as under: “5.2 As is evident from the aforesaid clause (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, the words used in the statute are 'has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished 'inaccurate particulars of such income'. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means to 'hide or keep secret.' The word 'conceal’ is de…

Sunanda V Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5834/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Sunanda V. Agarwala, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Damini, Flat No. 301, 21(2)(4), V. 3 Rd Floor, C-10, 5 Th Floor, Juhu Tara Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Juhu, Bkc, Bandra (East), Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 049. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ablpa9852A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…ITA 5834/Mum/2013 6 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the judicial decisions in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) , Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) and CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510(Del. HC) . 7. In the rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Virtuous Capital Limited v. ACIT in ITA No. 5647/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 vide orders dated 19th November, 2015 has considered all the case laws referred by the ld. D.R.…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

…uarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Hiralal Doshi ITA No.2231 of 2013 order dated 09/02/2016, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- (i) The reliance by the Revenue upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd 358 ITR 593 (SC) to contend that the justification of having deleted and accepted the amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as business income, to buy peace is not available. We find that the facts in that case are completely distinguishable and the observations made therein would not be universally applicable. In that case, a sum of Rs.40.74 lakhs had never been disclos…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

…uarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Hiralal Doshi ITA No.2231 of 2013 order dated 09/02/2016, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- (i) The reliance by the Revenue upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd 358 ITR 593 (SC) to contend that the justification of having deleted and accepted the amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as business income, to buy peace is not available. We find that the facts in that case are completely distinguishable and the observations made therein would not be universally applicable. In that case, a sum of Rs.40.74 lakhs had never been disclos…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

…uarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Hiralal Doshi ITA No.2231 of 2013 order dated 09/02/2016, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- (i) The reliance by the Revenue upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd 358 ITR 593 (SC) to contend that the justification of having deleted and accepted the amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as business income, to buy peace is not available. We find that the facts in that case are completely distinguishable and the observations made therein would not be universally applicable. In that case, a sum of Rs.40.74 lakhs had never been disclos…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

…uarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Hiralal Doshi ITA No.2231 of 2013 order dated 09/02/2016, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- (i) The reliance by the Revenue upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd 358 ITR 593 (SC) to contend that the justification of having deleted and accepted the amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as business income, to buy peace is not available. We find that the facts in that case are completely distinguishable and the observations made therein would not be universally applicable. In that case, a sum of Rs.40.74 lakhs had never been disclos…