SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance made by the assessee don’t attract penalty u/s attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance made by the assessee don’t attract penalty u/s attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowance made by the assessee don’t attract penalty u/s attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under 271(1)(c) of the Act unless the conditions provided under Explanation 5A to section

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed i.e. whether for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income would go to the root of the lis. Therefore, it would be a jurisdictional issue. Being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised before the High Court for the first time

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was proposed to be imposed i.e. whether for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income would go to the root of the lis. Therefore, it would be a jurisdictional issue. Being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised before the High Court for the first time

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

disallowable item under section 37(1) - Assessing Officer held that there was deliberate concealment of income on part of assessee, since assessee disclosed additional income only after he was confronted by Director (Inv.), with evidence - He, thus, passed a penalty order under section 271

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same:- 1. Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 2,37,68,669/- 2. Disallowance

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same:- 1. Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 2,37,68,669/- 2. Disallowance

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same:- 1. Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 2,37,68,669/- 2. Disallowance

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same:- 1. Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 2,37,68,669/- 2. Disallowance

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance of deduction under Section 10B of the Act during the penalty proceedings. The Penalty Order also meets the test laid down by the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court since the case before us is not one in which penalty proceedings were taken up on one limb of Section 271

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

disallowed at ₹1,36,101/-. However, on 01.12.2011 the Assessing Officer issued corrigendum Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; AY 09-10 cum order under section 154 of the Act correcting the mistake in the order and the relevant mistake in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271