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 ()

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal against an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is order made under section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing

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 ()

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal against an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is order made under section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing

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 ()

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal against an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is order made under section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing

EUREKA OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE (1), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

TDS, depreciation claimed at higher rate/higher additional depreciation claimed, low income shown by large contractors, mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR and mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s. 40A(2)(b) reported in the audit report and ITR”. The ld. A.O. vide order dated 06.12.2017 passed the assessment order

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

TDS certificate and reconciliation chart has been submitted. In respect of cash credit it was explained that amount received from Shirpur Education Society which is a charitable trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and is assessed to tax and letter of confirmation was submitted. The accounts of the said society are audited and amount appeared as a loan

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

TDS certificate and reconciliation chart has been submitted. In respect of cash credit it was explained that amount received from Shirpur Education Society which is a charitable trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and is assessed to tax and letter of confirmation was submitted. The accounts of the said society are audited and amount appeared as a loan

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

TDS certificate and reconciliation chart has been submitted. In respect of cash credit it was explained that amount received from Shirpur Education Society which is a charitable trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and is assessed to tax and letter of confirmation was submitted. The accounts of the said society are audited and amount appeared as a loan

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

TDS deducted. The income was reported as Nil by the assessee as the income earned from distribution of its cloud-based software to CSOD India according to the assessee is not Royalty or fees for technical services or business profits to be taxed in India as per the DTAA between India and UK. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

TDS deducted. The income was reported as Nil by the assessee as the income earned from distribution of its cloud-based software to CSOD India according to the assessee is not Royalty or fees for technical services or business profits to be taxed in India as per the DTAA between India and UK. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

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

TDS deducted. The income was reported as Nil by the assessee as the income earned from distribution of its cloud-based software to CSOD India according to the assessee is not Royalty or fees for technical services or business profits to be taxed in India as per the DTAA between India and UK. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

TDS deducted. The income was reported as Nil by the assessee as the income earned from distribution of its cloud-based software to CSOD India according to the assessee is not Royalty or fees for technical services or business profits to be taxed in India as per the DTAA between India and UK. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

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

TDS deducted. The income was reported as Nil by the assessee as the income earned from distribution of its cloud-based software to CSOD India according to the assessee is not Royalty or fees for technical services or business profits to be taxed in India as per the DTAA between India and UK. The case was selected for scrutiny

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

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

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

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

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

276C of the Act. While considering an appeal\nagainst an order made under section 271(1)(c) what is\nrequired to be examined is the record which the officer\nimposing the penalty had before him and if that record can\nsustain the finding that there had been concealment, that\nwould be sufficient to sustain the penalty.\n...The Explanations added

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

TDS has been claimed and there is no tax payable in the revised return and also hence, there was no intention to evade tax. Original Return was filed within the due date and the return has been revised only to correct a bona fide mistake in the original return of income. Also, as per section 139(5), the return