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 ()

Disallowance of claim under section 80G Rs. 50,000/- 4. On account of sale of car parking Rs. 2,82,87,953/- 5. On account of sale of scrap Rs. 27,68,349/- The Assessing Officer levied penalty to the extent of Rs.1,62,50,600 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide order under

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 ()

Disallowance of claim under section 80G Rs. 50,000/- 4. On account of sale of car parking Rs. 2,82,87,953/- 5. On account of sale of scrap Rs. 27,68,349/- The Assessing Officer levied penalty to the extent of Rs.1,62,50,600 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide order under

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 ()

Disallowance of claim under section 80G Rs. 50,000/- 4. On account of sale of car parking Rs. 2,82,87,953/- 5. On account of sale of scrap Rs. 27,68,349/- The Assessing Officer levied penalty to the extent of Rs.1,62,50,600 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide order under

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 ()

Disallowance of claim under section 80G Rs. 50,000/- 4. On account of sale of car parking Rs. 2,82,87,953/- 5. On account of sale of scrap Rs. 27,68,349/- The Assessing Officer levied penalty to the extent of Rs.1,62,50,600 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide order under

TATA PETRODYNE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance under section 14A at ` 25,17,274. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee was not convinced

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 5. Re-computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act 5.1. While passing the final order, the learned AO erred in not taking cognizance of the directions of the Hon'ble DRP with regard to the additions made on account of provision for leave encashment for the purpose of computation

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. " 11.8 In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary of Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, which was formed as a holding company for 'making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year

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

ARSHIYA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7177 & 7178/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010–11) M/S Arshiya Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 302, Level–3, Ceejay House, Income, Circle-21(2)(5) F–Block, Shiv Sagar Estate,Dr. Room No. 116, 1 St Floor, बनाम/ Annie Besant Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaci2679A अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Navnit Choudhary, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 घोर्णा की िारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R शक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Saktijit Dey, Jm:

disallowance under section 28 of the Act. Thus, he submitted, since the assessee has furnished full particulars of its purchase and sale transaction and correctly furnished the particulars of income, no penalty under section

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

274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act calling upon the assessee to explain why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Though, the assessee objected to the initiation of penalty proceedings, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee passed an order imposing penalty of ` 19,31,604, under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

disallowed the depreciation on BSE card amount to Rs.10,28,320/- and\ndisallowed bad debts amount to Rs.4,21,55,018/-. The notice under section 274

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

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

disallowances of expenses not attributable to the business aggregating to INR 162,81,36,515/-. Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the 3 Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as notice under Section 274

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being foundation of the penalty levied vide penalty order dated 30.03.2018, which was defective and/or confusing. Whereas, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As observed above, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being foundation of the penalty levied vide penalty order dated 30.03.2018, which was defective and/or confusing. Whereas, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As observed above, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being foundation of the penalty levied vide penalty order dated 30.03.2018, which was defective and/or confusing. Whereas, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As observed above, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Though it has been submitted by the assessee that the payment for purchase of software is for acquiring of copyrighted article and not for transfer of any right in the copyright and payment cannot be construed