ACIT CIR 7(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodacit, Circle-7(2)(2) M/S Novartis India Pvt. Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Sandoz House, Shivsagar Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 275(1)(a) of the Act and hence the penalty order should be held as null and void. 3. Without prejudice to Ground no 1, the respondents submit that the ACIT's action of issuing penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 28.08.2013 does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty was sought

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. | ITA No. | Assessment year | Appeal by | No. of days delay ---|---|---|---|--- 1. | 2980/Mum/2024 | 2014-15 | Revenue | 18 2. | 2979/Mum/2024 | 2015-16 | Revenue | 18 3. | 2049/Mum/2023 | 2016-17 | Revenue | 1 4. | 2046/Mum/2023 | 2017-18 | Revenue | 1

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue

EKTA SHAKTI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 25(3) NEW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (6)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1762/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) बिधम/ M/S. Ekta Shakti Developers Dcit, Central Circle (6) (2) 19Th Floor, Air India 401, Hallmark Business Vs. Plaza, Near Gurunank Building, Mumbai-400021. Hospital, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafe9373L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mahaveer Jain (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. Neelima V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2002-.03 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

275 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. --IT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied simply because of the additions were Sustained in the quantum proceedings without controverting the explanations

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Applying the same principles to the above issue, if the additional evidence is admitted, the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merit. 8. The appellant prays that the above mentioned additional evidences may kindly

NARENDRAKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

condonation of any perceived delay, as the appellant was granted multiple opportunities to comply, aligning with the principles of natural justice. The procedural delays in penalty proceedings, especially when opportunities are provided to the assessee, do not render the proceedings void, provided the principles of natural justice are adhered to. The limitation under section 275(1)(c

LALIT BHASKAR BHALERAO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2(5), KALYAN , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

c) of the Act. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has to consider the statement of facts and condonation delay application filed during the appeal. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\n8 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

condonation of delay is placed on record. \nUpon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\ncondone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the \nsaid delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275(1

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275(1

ITO(E)-1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDIAN RUGBY FOOTBAL UNION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethito(E)-1(3) Vs. Indian Rugby Football Union R. No. 6Th Floor, Mtnl 2Nd Floor, Nawab House, M K Road, Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G D Marine Lines, Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Mumbai-400002. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No: Aaat11523Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

275 (Kar.) and CIT(E) Vs. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research, (2024) 161 taxmann.com (Bom). 7. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find that this is a repetitive issue wherein the AO has disallowed a part