DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 269SS and 269T dof the Act shall not be attracted where there is no involvement of the „money‟ as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited cases, supra. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, though the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS / 269T

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 269SS and 269T dof the Act shall not be attracted where there is no involvement of the „money‟ as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited cases, supra. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, though the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS / 269T

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 269SS and 269T dof the Act shall not be attracted where there is no involvement of the „money‟ as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited cases, supra. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, though the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS / 269T

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 269SS and 269T dof the Act shall not be attracted where there is no involvement of the „money‟ as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited cases, supra. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, though the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS / 269T

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

269T of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year 2015-16 on the assessee company by the ld. Addl CIT (ld. AO herein). In response to the penalty show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

269T of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year 2015-16 on the assessee company by the ld. Addl CIT (ld. AO herein). In response to the penalty show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CC-7(3)., MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSSOR TO PALAVA DWELLERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

269T of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year 2015-16 on the assessee company by the ld. Addl CIT (ld. AO herein). In response to the penalty show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

269T of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year 2015-16 on the assessee company by the ld. Addl CIT (ld. AO herein). In response to the penalty show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act, the assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

269T of the Act would come into place. M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd.,  The ld. AR argued that assessee had also given detailed explanation for each and every transaction and the consolidated list of all those transactions have been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in para 7.2 page 15 in respect of penalty u/s.271D of the Act and para

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RUSHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS was deducted. The assessee submitted that the total loan was Rs.45.10 lakhs and interest paid was Rs.14.87 lakhs. The assessee also produced the copy of confirmation from the said party. As regards non depiction of the said repayment in form 3CD, it was submitted that only the repayment of loan under section 269T

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

269T. As per sub section (2) to both these sections any penalty imposable under sub section (1) of these provisions shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. It was, therefore, that the matter was referred to the Joint Commissioner who passed orders on 29.7.2008 levying penalty. 10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated

MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

269T. As per sub section (2) to both these sections any penalty imposable under sub section (1) of these provisions shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. It was, therefore, that the matter was referred to the Joint Commissioner who passed orders on 29.7.2008 levying penalty. 10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

269T during the course of assessment proceedings and then only competent authority like JCIT or Addl. CIT are authorised to impose penalty. Thus, there are two time limit envisaged in section 275, one, before the expiry of the financial year in the course of proceedings in which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated; or second six months

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

269T during the course of assessment proceedings and then only competent authority like JCIT or Addl. CIT are authorised to impose penalty. Thus, there are two time limit envisaged in section 275, one, before the expiry of the financial year in the course of proceedings in which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated; or second six months

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

section 269SS or 269T\nduring the course of assessment proceedings and then only\ncompetent authority like JCIT or Addl. CIT are authorised to\nimpose penalty. Thus, there are two time limit envisaged in\nsection 275, one, before the expiry of the financial year in the\ncourse of proceedings in which action for the imposition of\npenalty has been initiated

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

section 269SS or 269T\nduring the course of assessment proceedings and then only\ncompetent authority like JCIT or Addl. CIT are authorised to\nimpose penalty. Thus, there are two time limit envisaged in\nsection 275, one, before the expiry of the financial year in the\ncourse of proceedings in which action for the imposition of\npenalty has been initiated

HATIM GLAZING & CLADDING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(1) ,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS was paid by the appellant and also the fact that the corresponding receipts have been shown by the respective parties in their income and no disallowance was called for. (c). The appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs.15,42,750/- u/s.40(a)(ia) be deleted. 3. (a) The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty

HATIM GLAZING & CLADDING PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(1). MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS was paid by the appellant and also the fact that the corresponding receipts have been shown by the respective parties in their income and no disallowance was called for. (c). The appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs.15,42,750/- u/s.40(a)(ia) be deleted. 3. (a) The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty