ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

TDS under section 194IC. 8. The Id DR on the other hand vehemently argued that for the purpose of section 194IC, the provisions of section 45(5A

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 45(5A) of the Act and hence were liable for TDS as per the provisions of section 194IC of the Act. The appellant

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 45(5A) of the Act and hence were liable for TDS as per the provisions of section 194IC of the Act. The appellant

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45(5A

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45(5A

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45(5A

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45(5A

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 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

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

5A of section 271(1)(c), that no penalty can be imposed unless conditions stipulated in these provisions are duly and unambiguously met. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to clause (c) of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) to state that the amount of tax sought to be evaded is nil in the present case

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

5A) The prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions provided in this rule and in sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application." "(7A) Approval of expenditure

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

5A) The prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions provided in this rule and in sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application.\" \"(7A) Approval of expenditure

MAHINDRA MOTILAL BANTHIA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CNE CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1168, 7151 & 1169/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Mr. Mahendra Motilal Vs. Acit/Dcit, Cc-39, Mumbai Banthia, 169/A, Moti Mahal, M.G.Road, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aiyb 7531 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kothari याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2009-2010, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act.

5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 3. It was contended by ld. AR that pursuant to search action on 5-3- 2009 all the proceedings get abated and assessee had no choice but to wait for receipt of notice u/s.153A. The AO issued notice u/s.153A, which was received only after 31-3-2010 giving the time

MAHINDRA MOTILAL BANTHIA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CNE CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1168, 7151 & 1169/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Mr. Mahendra Motilal Vs. Acit/Dcit, Cc-39, Mumbai Banthia, 169/A, Moti Mahal, M.G.Road, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aiyb 7531 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kothari याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2009-2010, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act.

5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 3. It was contended by ld. AR that pursuant to search action on 5-3- 2009 all the proceedings get abated and assessee had no choice but to wait for receipt of notice u/s.153A. The AO issued notice u/s.153A, which was received only after 31-3-2010 giving the time