EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

271,201) STCL (bf) STT (223,701,502) Balance STCL (STT) (9,77,33,796) STCG (STT) 174,64,01,537 Net STCG (STT) 164,86,67,741 5.1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short term capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital loss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain, which was disallowed and a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated for the A.Y. 2013-14. Thus, it is evident that the Assessee is habitually claiming incorrect deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Thus, the incorrect deduction claimed by the Assessee cannot be considered as a mistake nor a bonafide mistake”. ultimately, disallowed

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain by claiming\ndepreciation on assets of KGD6 block considering them as intangible\nassets. Thus, on this account also, penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) could not be\nlevied for claim of such depreciation on KGD6 block assets.\nAccordingly, penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of depreciation on\nKGD6 block assets for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is\ndeleted.\"\n7.1

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

gain by claiming depreciation on assets of KGD6 block considering them as intangible assets. Thus, on this account also, penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) could not be levied for claim of such depreciation on KGD6 block assets. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of depreciation on KGD6 block assets for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is deleted

M/S MASCOT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) on the appellant company as the latter had furnished inaccurate particulars of latter had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by reporting as a its income by reporting as a 'Capital Receipt' an item of income which was clearly attracting a capital 'Capital Receipt' an item of income which was clearly attracting a capital 'Capital Receipt

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Soft-Skills/Non- Technical Training Fee of INR 11,96,947/- is concerned, we note that none of the facts/details furnished by the Appellant were found to be factually incorrect by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the Appellant was that the receipts from Soft- Skills/Non-Technical Training were

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act for long te was added to the returned income. The addition made was accepted was added to the returned income. The addition made was was added to the returned income. The addition made was by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act for long te was added to the returned income. The addition made was accepted was added to the returned income. The addition made was was added to the returned income. The addition made was by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the primary additions/disallowances leading to penalty are restored to the AO or when the assessee's claim, though not accepted as capital gain

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity of the reassessment as well as merit

NIRMAL NARENDRAKUMAR KOTECHA,MUMBAI vs. INT. TAX, WARD-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a debatable issue of whether the income should be offered as capital gains

AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

capital expenditure. 2. Rs.53,273/- on account of ad hoc expenses disallowance. 3. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment order also initiated the penalty proceeding for concealing the income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and thereafter issued a notice dated 13.03.2013 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of the particulars of income

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the 2 M/s. Pankaj Enterprises Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by raising grounds inter-alia that: “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing to recomputed penalty impossible u/s 271(1)(c) after computing capital gain

ALKA ASHOK JAGTAP,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

section 271(1)(c) is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts and deserves to be deleted in toto. The AR emphasised that the amount of Rs. 6,47,054/-, on which penalty has ultimately been levied, was fully disclosed in the return of income as Long Term Capital Gain