GOVARDHAN G VANANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

disallowed the loss on sale US-64 units on the ground that where income from particular source was exempt from tax then the loss fromsuch source could not be set off from another source under the same head of income. In view of theabove, theassessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty under Secton

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

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

disallowance of Rs.36,79,942 under section 14A of the Act provided by the Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. Set off of brought forward losses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the ACIT to set off brought forward business loss of earlier years while

IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

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

disallowance of Rs.36,79,942 under section 14A of the Act provided by the Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. Set off of brought forward losses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the ACIT to set off brought forward business loss of earlier years while

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

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

disallowance of Rs.36,79,942 under section 14A of the Act provided by the Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. Set off of brought forward losses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the ACIT to set off brought forward business loss of earlier years while

IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

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

disallowance of Rs.36,79,942 under section 14A of the Act provided by the Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. Set off of brought forward losses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the ACIT to set off brought forward business loss of earlier years while

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

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

disallowance of Rs.36,79,942 under section 14A of the Act provided by the Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. Set off of brought forward losses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the ACIT to set off brought forward business loss of earlier years while

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of interest on FDRs representing amounts of disputed excise duty deposited for obtaining bank guarantee; and addition/disallowance u/s. 40A(7) of the Act etc. Upon their sustenance by the Hon'ble Tribunal, proceedings u/s. 217(I)(c) of the Act were initiated and 6 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta consequent penalty levied by the Assessing Officer whose order was sustained

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 274 r.w.s 27I(l)(c) without striking off irrelevant portion of notice and also if the AO has not made a specific charge whether penalty proceeding is initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant portion of order is extracted below: "10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material

DCIT-9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.FUTURE E-COMMERCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

27i(i)(c) of the Act. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(3X2) be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance had occurred because it had a separate accounts department and there was “some confusion” and that the return was prepared by a non-CA and was signed by director who proceed on the basis that the return was correctly drawn up. The CIT(A), Tribunal and High Court affirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that since

ITO WD 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KESAR PETROPRODUCTS LTD, RATNAGIRI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

disallowances on this issue were confirmed by the first appellate authority. 4 13. It is seen from the written submissions filed during the present appellate proceedings, pertaining to concealment penalties, that the appellant has not submitted any evidences to support its contentions that the services in question were rendered and the payments of commission were justified. Since the concealment penalty

ALL INDIA MANUFACTURES ORGANIZATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

section 143(3) r.w.5.147 of the Act preferred by you has been fixed for hearing on 8.12.2016 at 11.30 A.M. and required to attend in person or through authorized representative. 2. In response to the above notice, neither anybody attended nor was any application for adjournment received. 3. As discussed above, an opportunity of being heard were afforded which were

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha () Acit-2(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Tata Sons Ltd Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Mumbai Pan : Aaact4060A Appellant Respondednt

27I(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 73,91,60,858/-, ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had not levied 2 ITA 1423/Mum/2013 penalty on all the additions confirmed by the CIT(A), but only in respect of false claims made by the assessee in respect of expenses of provision for payment to employees which was not a statutory obligation