Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Abdul Hamid Mustafa Hussain Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3008/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Abdul Hamid Abdul Ito, Ward 22(1)(1), Mustafa Hussain Shaikh Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. Vs. Shop No.5, Plot No.313, 15Pt, Near Geesee Apt, Vidyanagari, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amdps5078F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.7,50,000/- Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

…sidering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITA. No.3008/M/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

ITO 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rak Construciton Project P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito-3(3)(1), M/S Rak Construction Project Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd. 113-A, Mittal Tower, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aacck8147P Appellant Respondent

…oject Pvt. Ltd. triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013),358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed on 05.10.2015 under section 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 33,07,090/-. The assessing officer made addition under the head “Income from House Proper…

Govardhan G Vanani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

…9,016 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which is minimum penalty leviable. While doing so, the AO has relied upon various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors 306 ITR 277 (SC) to come to the conclusion that if the scrutiny assessment had not been taken place, the assessee could have been benefited by filing inaccurate particulars of income. Had the revenue not detected the inaccurate particulars of income, the assessee could have enjoyed the fruits of filing inaccurate particulars of income and would have caused…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Global Bradcasting Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-16(1) M/S Utv Global Broadcasting Ltd. Room No. 439, (Now Known As M/S Disney Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Entertainment (India) Ltd. 7Th Floor, M.K. Marg Mumbai- Building No. 11, Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacu9044R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

…in the instant case, as in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in Addl. CIT Vs Jeevan Lal San [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), B. A. Ralasubramaniam and Bros. Co. vs CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 [SC] and UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC)? D. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. In a nutshell, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 23.09.2011 declaring M/s UTV Global Broadcasting 3 loss of Rs.25,98,33,788/-. The Assessing…

Gangacharan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Gangacharan Choudhary बिाम/ Ito 19(2)(3), Mumbai 140A, Vakola Bridge Society, Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz (E), V. Mumbai 400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aigpc2139N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…nd the appellant is therefore, deemed to have concealed particulars of income. At this I.T.A. No.3620/Mum/2016 juncture it may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors Ltd. as reported in 306 ITR 277 wherein the Apex Court held that Mens rea was an essential ingredient of section 271(1)(c) and there is no discretion with the authority competent to impose penalty below the prescribed minimum. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the AO is fully justified on facts and in law in concluding that the case of…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xtp Design Furniture Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2009-2010

…curate particulars of income does not arise. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee and also relied upon judicial precedence including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [306 ITR 277 (SC)], observed that the assessee company has consciously and deliberately concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of interest paid on borrowed capital. He therefore, opined that it is a fit case for levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and, accordingly, levied pen…

Clarion Logistics India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4942/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Clarion Logistics India The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. F-4, 4Th Floor, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. Pinnacle Business Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc3479N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.07.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Upheld.

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

N. Jamnadas & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 N. Jamnadas & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Of 16, Bank Street, Fort, Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. Mumbai-400001. 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccfn8427G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018

…ong claim amounts to concealment of income and also furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income within the meaning of the provisions of section 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the AO relying on the decision in UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.1,84,615/- on the wrong claim of such expenses of Rs.4,61,538/- (25% of Rs.18,46,151/-). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that on identical issue, in the case of the assessee’s sister concern i.e. M/s J.M. Baxi & Co., the ITAT upheld…

Ashok Narayanan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhashok Narayanan Dcit 8(2) C/O Orion Commodities & 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Services Pvt. Ltd., B-401, Mumbai. Kotia Nariman Link Road, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053 Pan: Aaapn8540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh, J.M. 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- "12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuin…

Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5280/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd. Ito 19(1)(4) 10T H Road, Santacruz(E), Mumbai Mumbai 400055 V. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaas6226M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…latter, that a plausible explanation, the onus to subtiate which is on the assesses, seizes penalty, represents trite law, expounded by the apex court decades { refer; CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal /2009J ITR 317(SC); UOI v/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors 12008] 306 ITR 277(SC); K.P. Madhusudanan us. CIT 12001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v/s. CIT(1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl CIT v/s. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), to cite some, and which is completely absent in the instant case, the Id. CIT (A), Whose findings are comprehensive, has correctly appreciated both, the facts as well as the…

Saidutta Transport & Developers P. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4483/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Saidutta Transport & Developers Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax Circle-4 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Near Hanuman Mandir बनाम/ Chatrapati Shivaji Marg Vs. Road No.16Z Virar(W),Tal.Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate Thane-400 601 Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcs-8773-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi,Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / : 03/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06 /04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

…ITA No.4483/Mum/2016 Saidutta Transport & Developers Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “आई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4483/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Saidutta Transport & Developers Assistant Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax Circle-4 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Near Hanuman Mandir बनाम/ Chatrapati Shivaji Marg Vs. Road No.16Z Virar(W),Tal.Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate T…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhanrajgir Business P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

…this regard, learned DR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (327 ITR 510). Learned DR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile (306 ITR 277) and contended that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty. 4. On the contrary, learned AR submitted that the assessee did not conceal any particulars of income or furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has duly declared all its income under the head ‘income from business”. The Assessing Officer has mere…

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharnendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under:- “12 A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AG at the time of issuing no…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ee had submitted inaccurate particulars of income and penalty was imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO while imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & others 306 ITR 277, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Rakesh Suri (2010) 233 CTR (AU) 184, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 decision in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 233 CTR 465 (Del), vide penalty order dated 26-03-2012 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by penalty order…

Suresh Mohan Kanwar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…shed inaccurate particulars of income whereby the assessee had made itself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) , the AO relied on the several case laws including decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) and decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and imposed penalty @200% of tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , vide penalty order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act.. 5.The assessee carried out the matter by filing first appeal befo…