SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

ROHIT LALIT SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

TDS had been deducted and paid in time. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 0026 submitted that the impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down by the 3 Assessment Year

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act we will consider the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 as a lead case. For the AY 2015-16 the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring Nil income and claiming a refund of Rs. 1,30,15,030/- out of the TDS

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act we will consider the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 as a lead case. For the AY 2015-16 the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring Nil income and claiming a refund of Rs. 1,30,15,030/- out of the TDS

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act we will consider the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 as a lead case. For the AY 2015-16 the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring Nil income and claiming a refund of Rs. 1,30,15,030/- out of the TDS

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act we will consider the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 as a lead case. For the AY 2015-16 the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring Nil income and claiming a refund of Rs. 1,30,15,030/- out of the TDS

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act we will consider the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 as a lead case. For the AY 2015-16 the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring Nil income and claiming a refund of Rs. 1,30,15,030/- out of the TDS

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

TDS was deducted and paid. These facts were disclosed by the assessee in the original return of income. However, inadvertently, the same remained to be claimed in the revised return of income filed for A.Y. 2012-13. After following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT (supra) as relied upon by the Ld.Counsel

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

TDS was deducted and paid. These facts were disclosed by the assessee in the original return of income. However, inadvertently, the same remained to be claimed in the revised return of income filed for A.Y. 2012-13. After following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT (supra) as relied upon by the Ld.Counsel

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

TDS was deducted and paid. These facts were disclosed by the assessee in the original return of income. However, inadvertently, the same remained to be claimed in the revised return of income filed for A.Y. 2012-13. After following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT (supra) as relied upon by the Ld.Counsel