Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Panther Investrade Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in all the three years are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…fter thorough Scrutiny of the file and issue of Show cause notice. Hence it cannot be stated that the assessee agreed the addition to buy peace. In this connection it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. C.LT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that the surrender of income - No automatic immunity from Penalty. It also held that voluntary disclosure does not release from the mischief of penal proceedings. The Law does not provide when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from penalty. The A.O. should not be carried away by the…

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

…accurate particulars of income, thus, the penalty was rightly upheld by the Ld. 3 Mr. Kumar V. Vasani Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Reliance was placed upon the decision in MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 263 CTR (SC) 1 : (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) : (2013) 94 DTR (SC) 379. 2.2. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that there was an AIR information with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited cash in saving bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. (Rs.13,46,765/-), Sarswat Cooperative Bank Ltd.(…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…he assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510(Delhi) , UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processor (2008) 174 Taxman 571(SC) and Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC). 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions have been made by the A.O. which has not been challenged in the quantum addition. The assessee submitted that the AO has alleged that it is only due to AIR information received that the assessee case was selected for scrutiny and it came to the notice of the Revenue that the a…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory, Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4428/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-2(3) M/S. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Factory Ltd.,5Th Floor, 139, Nagindas Vs. Bhavanmk Road, Master Rd.Fort, Mumbai-1. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaact 1343 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 Co/144/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Vs. Acit-2(3) Factory Ltd.Mumbai. Mumbai.

…4428/M/12-Seksaria BiswanSF आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4428/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-2(3) M/s. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Room No.552, 5th Floor, Aayakar Factory Ltd.,5t…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITO, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar IT Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHFA 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

B.S.N. Consultants (P)Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward No.8(1)(2) Now Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 & 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, Ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8Th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccb1907E

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 and 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN/GIR No. :AACCB1907E अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant by: Shri Dinesh Shah प…

B.S.N. Consultants (P)Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 8(1)(2) Now Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 & 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, Ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8Th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccb1907E

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 and 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN/GIR No. :AACCB1907E अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant by: Shri Dinesh Shah प…

Sunrise Optics, Mumbai vs. A.O WD 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Blem/S. Sunrise Optics, Ito-13(1)(2), 1St & 2Nd Ground Floor, Block-B, Vs. Mumbai. Sujal Mansion, Bhangawadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aagfs 8638 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ned the penalty without dealing with any of the submissions of the assessee. 5. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. ( 358 ITR 593). 6. We have heard the rivals submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find considerable force in the submissions of the Authorized Representative of the assessee that the ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the elaborate submissions made by the assessee in the course of the proceedings before him. In fact, the ld.CIT(A) has extract…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

…parties, and perused the material on record. In our view, the assessee stands to succeed. That a plausible view shall save penalty is trite law, and for which case law is legion, to some of which we may refer to, as follows: Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC);Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). What the assessee has acquired (at a co…

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

…e provision, read with Explanation 1 thereto (which need not be separately invoked), reproduced as under, is self-explanatory, and the case law in the matter legion, and toward which we may cite some celebrated decisions, viz Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB): ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply w…

ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Dhadda Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…that claim of depreciation was made under bonafide belief. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions. i) Union of India v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC); and ii) MAK Data (P) Ltd v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) 8 M/s. Dhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 6. Learned Authorised Representative on the other hand supporting the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the assessee is carrying on business in cutting and polishing of diamond. For the purpose of its business the assessee had acquired certain premises in the year 1994–95, however, sinc…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Nupoor Capitals P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…that the disallowance made by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act is without any basis and the same constitutes dissatisfaction recorded by the AO in terms of sec. 14A of the Act. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of MAK Data P Ltd (358 ITR 593) that the “satisfaction” required u/s 271(1)(c) need not be recorded in a particular manner. He submitted that the ratio of the said decision would equally apply to sec. 14A of the Act. Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made u/s 14A of the Act by holding that the assessing officer has not recor…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…manner in which the undisclosed income was earned. The ld. D.R. relied upon the decision in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Taxtile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). He also relied upon the order of A.O. and submitted that the return of income was filed late by the assesssee on 30th September, 2009 against the due date of 31st August, 2009. 22. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated its submissions as were made before the authorities below which are not repeated for the sake of…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…manner in which the undisclosed income was earned. The ld. D.R. relied upon the decision in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Taxtile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). He also relied upon the order of A.O. and submitted that the return of income was filed late by the assesssee on 30th September, 2009 against the due date of 31st August, 2009. 22. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated its submissions as were made before the authorities below which are not repeated for the sake of…