Mumbai in Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT Cen Cir 3, Thane vs. Akshar Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

…is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 271(1j). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature." Similar judgements have passed by several other courts under similar facts: i) Walter Saidhana Vs DCIT (2011) 44 SOT 26 (Mum) (Trib) ii) Chandrapal Bagga Vs ITAT (2003) 261 hR 67(Raj) iii) Devsons P. Ltd V CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 21 (Del) 11. The assessee in the present case had made a bona-fide claim and hence following the apex court judgement and other courts as above, it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is not leviable in this case. 12. The claim…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Duron Technologies (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-9(3)(1) M/S Duron Technologies (India) Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No. A-11, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Trishul, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaccd1243R Appellant Respondent : Shri Pankaj R. Toprani With Appellant By Shri Krupa P. Toprani (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…case where the claim made by the assessee is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason. The court held that this cannot be the intention of the legislature." Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Walter Saldhana 44 SOT 26 wherein it was decided as under: "Mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee in the present case had made a bona fide claim and hence foll…

Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Binani Metas Ltd, Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6014/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-2(1) M/s. Binani Metals Ltd. Room No.575, 5th Floor, M.K. Road Mercantile Chambers, 2nd Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001. PAN:AAACB 2901…

Mangalam Shipping & Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee against impugned order for the Asst

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

…vs Reliance Petro products P Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, Price waterhouse coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 and decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs DCIT(2010) 42 SOT325 and Walter Saldhana vs DCIT (2011)44 SOT 26 in support of his arguments. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents in the light of respective submissions of the parties. We notice that the issue involved in the first ground of appeal has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Mumbai, Tribunal against the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee has failed…

Mangalam Shipping & Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee against impugned order for the Asst

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

…vs Reliance Petro products P Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, Price waterhouse coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 and decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs DCIT(2010) 42 SOT325 and Walter Saldhana vs DCIT (2011)44 SOT 26 in support of his arguments. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents in the light of respective submissions of the parties. We notice that the issue involved in the first ground of appeal has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Mumbai, Tribunal against the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee has failed…

Anil C. Kilachand, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6377/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri Anil C. Kilachand ACIT, Circle-8(1) Kilachand House Aayakar Bhavan 95, Napeansea Road Mumbai-400 006. Vs. Mumbai-400 006. PAN:AACPK 3838 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M. Murli Assessee by: Shri Anil Sathe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing:07.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 16.03…

ACIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…een adequately disclosed to the Revenue, penalty cannot be levied. Reference is made to the decision of jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in cases of ITO v. Roborant Investment P Ltd 7 SOT 181, DCIT v. Ushdeve' Internation Ltd 137 TTJ 337, WaUer Saldhana v. DCIT 44 SOT 26 and Unit Design JewelleryP Ltd v. DCIT 6 ITR 10 and also Delhi High Court in case of Devsons Pvt Ltd 196 Taxman 21 (Del) and others. In case of Devsons Pvt Ltd, Hon'ble Delhi HC has held as under: "29. We find no substance in the aforesaid contention as it is well settled that though assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, and the findings…

Virtuous Capital Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ef regarding allowability of short term capital loss on sale of securities in terms of provisions of section 94(7), the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Walter Saldhana Assessment Year: 2008-09 vs DCIT, 44 SOT 26 (Mum) held that if the AO had made addition only on the basis of material and information furnished by the assessee, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not justified. In this regard, we consider it prudent to reproduce para 16 of the said case, which reads as under: "16. ... On perusal of the orders of revenue authorities, we find that the…