ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LIMITED ,CHURCHGATE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

274 read with Section 270A of the Act was issued on 23/12/2019. In response, the Appellant filed, reply letter dated 16/08/2021, claiming that the disallowance of depreciation

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section under which the showcause notice U/s 274 of the Act was issued and secondly, there is no mention about the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. So accordingly, the said notice is invalid. Considering the fact of the case, the Ld.AR informed that

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

depreciation in terms of section 32(1)(i) upon the intangible assets acquired by the assessee. section 32(1)(i) upon the intangible assets acquired by section 32(1)(i) upon the intangible assets acquired by Thus, these grounds are al Thus, these grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee” lowed in favour of the assessee

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

274 (Bang-Trib.) held\nthat amendment in section 32(1) by Finance Act, 2021 to the effect that no\ndepreciation was allowable on goodwill would take effect from 01/04/2021\nand would be applicable from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent\nyears.\n28. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,\nlegal position and judicial pronouncements

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

274 (Bang-Trib.) held\nthat amendment in section 32(1) by Finance Act, 2021 to the effect that no\ndepreciation was allowable on goodwill would take effect from 01/04/2021\nand would be applicable from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent\nyears.\n28. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,\nlegal position and judicial pronouncements

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

274\nr/w, section 271 of the Act. Principles of Natural Justice cannot be read\nin abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide\nnetwork in various financial services, should definitely be precluded\nfrom raising such a plea at this belated stage. By claiming depreciation

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT P LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal and CO filed by the Revenue and Assessee respectively, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Michael Page Income Tax -14(1)(1), International Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, 2 North Avenue Maker Mumbai - 400020 Maxity, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagcm8425N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 274 of the Act is issued for concealment of the particulars of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of such income. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the aforesaid additions made by the AO, challenged the same, by filing first appeal, before the then Ld. CIT(A), who though affirmed the aforesaid additions, however allowed the depreciation

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation in subsequent years, reinforcing the argument of inadvertence.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 11(6)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 274

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

depreciation on the cost of membership card. Is the cost of acquisition to be computed as per Section 50 of the Act or Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. Further, what should be the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd.; 13. At the outset, I make it clear that so far as the relevant factual matrix

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

274\nPage 4\nITA No. 1152/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2014-15\nMukon Construction Private Limited\nr/w, section 271 of the Act. Principles of Natural Justice cannot be read\nin abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide\nnetwork in various financial services, should definitely be precluded\nfrom raising such a plea at this belated stage. By claiming depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. STONE SHIPPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), of the I.T. Act 1961 has already been served on you.” 6. Even the AO while levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his penalty order dated 29.03.2016 had levied the penalty vide para 14 as under: - “In view of the above discussions, I hold that the assessee has furnished

SHORELINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle- 1(2), 29 Dar-Ul.Habib, Marine Drive, Old Cgo Building, 9Th Floor, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,31,417/-. Thus, the total disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) was to the tune of Rs. 21,30,322/-. Based on the disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the AO initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), the relevant limb in the notice has not be struck down by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri Satishchandra Rajore, Ld. DR, defended the imposition of penalty. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting 3 ITA. No.3443/Mum/2017 Amit Capital & Securities Pvt. Ltd. further

TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

depreciation Total 2,40,09,176 Thereafter, in para 13 of the penalty order the A.O has stated that assessee has sought to eliminate its incidence of taxation by furnishing inaccurate particulars as thereby concealed its actual income. The ld. Counsel has vehemently contended that assessing officer has not specified in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s