ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

housed in secured building space and infrastructure, manage proper performance of the hardware and operating systems, ensure adequate technical support of operating systems, to ensure system performance, maintain adequate security measures and effective internal control environment and also put in place appropriate disaster recovery plan. All these are to be maintained by the assessee to conduct the processing of data

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

housed in secured building space and infrastructure, manage proper performance of the hardware and operating systems, ensure adequate technical support of operating systems, to ensure system performance, maintain adequate security measures and effective internal control environment and also put in place appropriate disaster recovery plan. All these are to be maintained by the assessee to conduct the processing of data

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

housed in secured building space and infrastructure, manage proper performance of the hardware and operating systems, ensure adequate technical support of operating systems, to ensure system performance, maintain adequate security measures and effective internal control environment and also put in place appropriate disaster recovery plan. All these are to be maintained by the assessee to conduct the processing of data

D C POLYESTER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

house property, the software automatically allows statutory deduction towards repairs @ 30%. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the addition to the total income, 5 D C Polyester Ltd. which was related to the Statutory deduction, is covered by the above said bonafide explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned AR pleaded that the penalty levied under section 270A

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property” u/s. 23(1) r.w.s. 23(4) of the Act as deemed rent. Penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the for under reporting of income for consequence of misreporting of income was initiated separately. It was further held that the assessee has merely submitted that he has filed appeal in this case before Ld. CIT(A) but the order

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property” u/s. 23(1) r.w.s. 23(4) of the Act as deemed rent. Penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the for under reporting of income for consequence of misreporting of income was initiated separately. It was further held that the assessee has merely submitted that he has filed appeal in this case before Ld. CIT(A) but the order

ANGLO EASTERN INSTITUTES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrianglo Eastern Institutes V/S. Cit(A)/Nfac, बनाम Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Unit No. 102, Mezzaniene Floor, Leela Business Park, Marol, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Maharashtra-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcca3508K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 270A(9)(a) of the Act for misrepresentation.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for AY 2017- 18 declaring total income of Rs. 13,71,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee has shown income from house property

PRATHAMESH VIVEK KHOT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property from two properties, thus, he inferred that once the assessee owns two residential properties and the income of both the properties have been offered by the assessee in the return, therefore, in terms of Section 54F, assessee is not entitled for the claim of exemption from capital gains u/s.54F. 4. In response to the show-cause notice assessee

PRATHAMESH VIVEK KHOT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 41 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Prathamesh Vivek Khot 1502-1503 Dreams 1-A Wing, National E-Assessment Lbs Marg Bhandup (W), Centre, Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400 078 Maharashtra-400 078 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bsbpk6695K Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024

270A (9) of the act of ₹ 757,438/–, therefore he did not interfered and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 07. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that i. Even on the merits, the claim of the assessee under section 50 4F is maintainable as assessee is joint owner along with his father in one of the house property

DIMPLE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

270A of MMC Act has been obtained on 30/12/2014. The unsold flat, were not intended of being letout during the previous year.” 5. Assessee further referred to certain case law from ITAT. The assessee further submitted that the Delhi High Court decision in Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd (supra) is pending with Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

house property has been declared/estimated by the AO. 9. What about the sundry debtors, creditors and other assets held by the firm is not clear. Further, it is also noted that you have not disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment. You have failed to report his income as per the Income

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

house property’ in respect of unsold property’ in respect of unsold flats,the Assessing Officer was he Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and non-initiation of penalty of penalty has rendered the assessment order

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

9 raised in assessee's appeal are\nallowed for statistical purposes.\n\n41. Ground no.10, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the initiation of\npenalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act, which is premature in\nnature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed.\n\n42. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes