DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO SHREENIVAS COTTON MILLS LTD), MUMBAI

disallowances / additions. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had carried out certain transactions in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3),, MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

disallowances / additions. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had carried out certain transactions in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA DEVELOPER PVT LTD), MUMBAI

disallowances / additions. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had carried out certain transactions in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act which would invite the assessee with penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Accordingly, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were initiated for the Asst Year

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

disallowance of INR 2,00,600/- is deleted and Ground No. 4. g) raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 4.h) 6.36. By way of Ground No. 4.h) the Assessee had sought deletion of addition made under Section 269SS and 269T

MITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT - CC - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 269T, therefore, after the amalgamation, assessee became liable for such breach that was committed by all the transferor / amalgamating entities which now have merged into the assessee. Hence, enhancement does not transgress beyond the subject matter of present appeal. 15 M/s. Mita Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 10. In this regard, he made following observations:- 5.10.9 It is observed that

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NAMINATH BUILDERS & FARMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NAMINATH BUILDERS & FARMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NAMINATH BUILDERS & FARMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NAMINATH BUILDERS & FARMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 269T of the Act. 7.5. In the appellant’s case the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt and it has not been shown either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings that unaccounted income of the lender or the borrower was involved. From the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated

ANKITA KNITWEAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Ankita Knitwear Limited, Acit-12(1)(1) 2Nd 301, Amazon Chsl, Jai Raj Vs. Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Nagar, Off Link Road Borivali Mumbai-400020. East Mumbai-400091. Pan No. Aabca3859P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mahesh Saboo, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satish Chandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

section 269T as alleged. Further it was submitted that the company can make the payment of salary in cash to the Director and by mistake the two accounts were opened and the entries were made in one account instead of another account. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RUSHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance is that the said repayment of advance was not shown in the form 3CD as per provisions of section 269T

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

disallowance of interest. Thus it is stated that the penalty u/s 271C should not have been levied as there was a reasonable cause for failure to deduct the tax at source in terms of section 273B of the Act. Thirdly, the Ld. counsel submits that the recipients of interest and sale price of the property had paid taxes in their

MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

disallowance of interest. Thus it is stated that the penalty u/s 271C should not have been levied as there was a reasonable cause for failure to deduct the tax at source in terms of section 273B of the Act. Thirdly, the Ld. counsel submits that the recipients of interest and sale price of the property had paid taxes in their

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance of deduction made be allowed.” 22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Assessing Officer and sustained

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance of deduction made be allowed.” 22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Assessing Officer and sustained

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowance of deduction made be allowed.” 22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Assessing Officer and sustained