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

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

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

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) at\n100% of tax sought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/-, amounting to\n₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that:\n(i), the assessee failed to file any evidence or details justifying the\nexpenses and relied merely on judicial precedents asserting that no\npenalty can be levied on estimated disallowances

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

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. 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

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS was already made P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2014-15 Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai and reflected in Form 26AS does not absolve him of the penal consequences. Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c

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

SHORELINE HOTEL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

TDS and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed

M/S FLEMMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DFS INDIA P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9 (3) (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Flemingo Travel Retail Dcit –9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Limited (Formerly Known As Dfs India Pvt. Ltd.), Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, International Airport, New Vs. Mumbai 400020 Terminal 2, Csi Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Pan – Aaccd7412N (Appellant) (Respondent)

271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.— (1) If the AO or the CIT(A) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or he may direct that such person shall

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) ..

271(1)(c) was justified. [New United Construction Co. vs. CIT (2004) 270 ITR 214 (Jharkhand)]. Where original return is neither under s. 139(1) or under s. 139(2) but is a return filed under s. 139(4) which could not have been revised under s. 139(5) as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumar

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

Section 271(1)(c) and the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) , vide penalty order dated 29-06-2010 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t. disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s 80IC, the assessee filed first appeal with

ITO 13(2)(3), MANGALORE vs. SHANGRIAL SALES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito-13(2)(3) M/S Shangrila Sales Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Room No. 1468, 50, Link Side Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Carter Road, Bandra (West), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 050 Mumbai-20 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafcs3227B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the wrong claim of revenue expenditure of Rs.107,94,855/- raised by the assessee in its return of income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of the appellate proceedings it was for the very

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