STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance against the weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act by the Appellant. 7.2 In disregarding the various other binding judgements of the ITAT and Hon'ble High Court which squarely applies to the Appellant's case with regard to allowability of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) which are in relation to expenses incurred by DSIR

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

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. 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

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act amounting to `45,50,866/-. On appeal, the learned CIT(A)-20, Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 has allowed the assessee partial relief; whereby the penalty levied under section 271

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act amounting to `45,50,866/-. On appeal, the learned CIT(A)-20, Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 has allowed the assessee partial relief; whereby the penalty levied under section 271

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act amounting to `45,50,866/-. On appeal, the learned CIT(A)-20, Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 has allowed the assessee partial relief; whereby the penalty levied under section 271

POLYCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance of the write–off. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee has furnished full particulars of write–off of 25 lakh. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which the Assessing Officer had ultimately imposed penalty under section 271

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

disallowed 2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 deleted the penalty levied under section 271

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271.(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing

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

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act. Since, the subject matter of imposition of penalty under section 271

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 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. 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