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 SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

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 responded that during the year under consideration, the following transactions were entered by the assessee by passing journal entries

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

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 responded that during the year under consideration, the following transactions were entered by the assessee by passing journal entries

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

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 responded that during the year under consideration, the following transactions were entered by the assessee by passing journal entries

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

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 responded that during the year under consideration, the following transactions were entered by the assessee by passing journal entries

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)

271E, it is the AO who first possibly notice the violation under section 269SS or 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

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)

271E, it is the AO who first possibly notice the violation under section 269SS or 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

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB

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

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

271E of the Act, we find from the perusal of the ledger accounts, majority of the entries represent regular income tax payments and TDS remittances made by one entity on behalf of another entity which are reflected both in debit as well as in credit side of the M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd., respective ledger accounts (i.e debit entries totaling

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271E, 13 13[section 271F, 14[section 271FA section 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 16[section 271FAB,] 17[ [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause