ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. ( ERSTWHILE ANAGRAM FINANCE LTD), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 1995-96

penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to Tata Telecom Ltd. is concerned, the amount of penalty is Rs.95

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

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

penalty in respect of disallowance on depreciation on KGD6, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation under \"oil and gas division

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of depreciation on steel purchase even though

CANA GLASS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Cana Glass Ltd. Vs. Ito Ward 9(1)(2) Predpl, 52, Natasha House Aayakar Bhavan, Hill Road, Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc5587D Appellant) .. Respondent)

penalty imposed in relation to the denial of claim of depreciation also.” 7. Since, the coordinate Bench has deleted the penalty

ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DHADDA DIAMONDS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by issuing notice under section

CANA GLASS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Cana Glass Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Predpl, 52, Natasha House, Income Tax, Circle 9 (1), Hill Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400050 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5587D

penalty of claim of depreciation. But the Tribunal deleted the same. Hence, in the present case the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable

SUNIL T. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in 11 ITA 456 & 457/Mum/2016 respect of disallowance of depreciation on computers. Aggrieved by the penalty

THE HINDUSTAN CO-OP. BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT 13(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodm/S The Hindustan Co-Op Commmissioner Of Income Bank Limited, 4-A, Devi Galli, Tax-28, Baburao Bodbe Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazaar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 009 Mumbai – 400 020. Pan – Aabat4355R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation my predecessor has confirmed the penalty. Hence penalty on both counts of depreciation is confirmed.” As is discernible from

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CASTROL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") on the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation

DCIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI vs. DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

penalty levied on account of confirmation of quantum addition regarding disallowance of additional depreciation claimed in the return u/s 153A

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

depreciation. The assessee in the course of the penalty proceedings tried to impress upon the A.O that the raising of depreciation

ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of C- 306, Crystal Plaza, Income Tax, Andheri Link Road, Central Circle – 20, Andheri (West), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aacca2062M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Harit ( Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020

penalty on addition on account of disallowance of depreciation and deleted the penalty in respect of addition u/s 50C of the Act. Still

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO OMEGA ASSOCIATES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO OMEGA ASSOCIATES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount