Rupam Mercantile v. DCIT

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Cit-14(3)(2), M/S. Shivshahi Punarvasan 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Prakalp Ltd., 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Griha Nirman Vs. M.K. Marg, Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaccs1590C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. Subramaniyam, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R

…ddition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances, penalty cannot be levied under sec. 271 (1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile 3 M/s. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. Vs DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt. Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The submission of substantial question, of law by the Hon'ble High Court lends credence to the bonafides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a persona properly instructed in…

Technoweld, Mumbai vs. ACIT, -20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 1999-2000 M/S. Technoweld, The Asst. Commissioner Of 1-28, Mittal Estate, Income Tax – 20(3), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Jijeebhai Lane, Mumbai – 400 059 Nr. Morarji Mills, Parel, Pan: Aaaft2273Q Mumbai – 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Miss Anupama Singla, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017 O R D E R

…s certainly debatable. He further submitted that in this circumstances the penalty cannot be levied as held in various judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court including Rupam Mercantile vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 237 and Smt. Ramila Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171, therefore, penalty may be deleted. Ld. A.R. further submitted that simply by admission of addition, if the addition is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, assessee must be given liberty to raise the legal objection before the authorities. 3. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the…

Royal Nursing Home, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

…High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the same is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd)(TM)] and Smt. Ramila Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. 6.6 To sum up, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have admitted the substantial question of law of the assessee in respect of the order of the Tribunal reducing the cost of medicine from Rs. 23,28,656/- estimated by the AO to Rs. 16,63,326/- being cost only. Thus it becomes a…

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3 (1), Mumbai

…to the case of IndusInd Bank Ltd. (ITA No.2839/ Mum/2008), IndusInd Bank Ltd. (55 Taxmann 408), Development Credit Bank (ITA 5490/Mum/2010); HDFC Ltd. (ITA No.4886/87 of 2010); Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (231Taxmann 665); Roopam Mercantile Ltd. (91 ITD 237); Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd.(147 ITD 693);Schrader Dunken Ltd.(ITA No.8223/M/2010 dt.1.12015),and argued that the transaction with GEB and the assessee was between a Financial Institution and a PSU, that the same could not be termed a device to evade tax,that the finding that the transaction was not genuine, was contrary to well settled…

Mahindra Realty & Infrastructure Developoers ( Since Merged With Mahindra Engg & Chemical Products Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6122/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-2003 Mahindra Realty & Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Mumbai- Infrastructure Developers 20 Limited (Since Merged With Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd.) Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 4116 G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, Dated 26-7-2012, For The Assessment Year 2002-2003, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Ld. Ar Placed On Record Order Of The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Wherein Substantial Question Of Law Has Been Admitted With Regard To The Additions Confirmed By The Tribunal. He Further Relied On The Following Judicial Pronouncements In Support Of The Proposition That No Penalty Should Be Imposed When Substantial Question Of Law Had Been Admitted By High Court :- I) Nayan Builders & Developers

…igh Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)© as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a person properly instructed in l…

Mahindra Engineering & Chemicals Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6122/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-2003 Mahindra Realty & Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Mumbai- Infrastructure Developers 20 Limited (Since Merged With Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd.) Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 4116 G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, Dated 26-7-2012, For The Assessment Year 2002-2003, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Ld. Ar Placed On Record Order Of The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Wherein Substantial Question Of Law Has Been Admitted With Regard To The Additions Confirmed By The Tribunal. He Further Relied On The Following Judicial Pronouncements In Support Of The Proposition That No Penalty Should Be Imposed When Substantial Question Of Law Had Been Admitted By High Court :- I) Nayan Builders & Developers

…igh Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)© as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a person properly instructed in l…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…igh Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)© as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a person properly instructed in l…