ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. 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 ()

Section 273B carves out an exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. assessee proves that there

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 ()

Section 273B carves out an exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the exception, stipulating that no penalty shall be imposable if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. assessee proves that there

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

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

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS statements, unlike the provisions contained under section 273B of the Act, there is no question of either waiving the late

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

273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of 269T as the fact of each transaction need independent verification?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in merely relying upon the various case laws without examining the cause behind each instance of default which, therefore

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

273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of 269T as the fact of each transaction need independent verification?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in merely relying upon the various case laws without examining the cause behind each instance of default which, therefore

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

273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of 269T as the fact of each transaction need independent verification?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in merely relying upon the various case laws without examining the cause behind each instance of default which, therefore

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

273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of 269T as the fact of each transaction need independent verification?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in merely relying upon the various case laws without examining the cause behind each instance of default which, therefore

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

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

Section 273B of the Act. The ld. AR also placed reliance on yet another decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lodha Builders Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.199 of 2015 dated 06/02/2018 in support of the same proposition. The ld. AR also placed on record the evidences wherein the Special Leave

SAINT GOBAIN MATERIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION SAS,FRANCE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

TDS @15% as per the Article 12 of India - USA DTAA. We find that the assessment has been framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at the returned income of the assessee. This shows that no Transfer Pricing adjustment has been made by the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment. 6. We are of the considered view

SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 3, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.Cit, (Tds)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang House, 5Th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal New Marine Lines Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Charni Road Pan:Aadcs 0954 M Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Dharmendra M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 8.10.2014 & 19.5.2014, Of The Cit(A)-14 The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Years.Issue Involved In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K)Of The Act,For Filing Quarterly Returns In Form Number 24Q/ 26Q Belatedly.So,We Are Adjudica - Ting All The Appeals By Single Order.

TDS returns in time fall within the exception of reasonable cause,as envisaged by the provisions of section 273B of the Act. It is not disputed