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

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

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

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

DDIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT LYONNAIS (THROUGH THERI SUCCESSOR CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK ( FORMERLY CALYON BANK), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Charitable E Trust, Chennai - Rs.6,000/- By referring to the acknowledgement receipts placed in the Paper Book at pages 51 to 52, it was sought to be pointed out that all the three recipients are recognized under section 80G of the Act and, therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80G of the Act was rightly made

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 10(3) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) also is not sure of the taxability of the receipt, then why the appellant should be slapped with the impugned penalty if he makes a claim by disclosing all relevant particulars. Further, the fact that the CIT(A) has taken a without prejudice contention also means that

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the trust was denied exemption

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the trust was denied exemption

SHRI AMIT CHANDRAKANT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Charitable Trust. No further appeal against the said addition was filed by assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c

LIC GOLDEN JUBILEE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION) 1 (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

charitable trust registered under the Mumbai Public Trust Act, 1950, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 09.09.2010 declaring „Nil‟ income. In the assessment proceedings, under Section 143(3) of the Act total income of the Appellant was determined that INR 2,11,47,230/-, and penalty proceeding was initiated under Section 271(1)(c

MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANDRA RECLAMATION vs. DCIT (EXEM) - 2, MUMBAI, PEDDER ROAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) wherein no specific charge of either tiling of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income was mentioned and thereby passing the order of penalty which is to be quashed as per recent judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 2. The assessee is a charitable trust registered under section

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

charitable object qualifying for exemption under section 11 of the Act. This decision is squarely covers the present case. In the instant case too, the assessee trust has been providing guarantees as per the Trust Deed settled by Government of India and SIDBI. It is also not a case where the assessee has been charging exorbitant processing and service charges

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Since, a similar issue has already been decided in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Since, a similar issue has already been decided in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts