THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 03.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 16.03.2018 Date

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 03.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 16.03.2018 Date

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 03.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 16.03.2018 Date

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 03.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 16.03.2018 Date

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 03.01.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 16.03.2018 Date

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

house property by way of rent arose which was offered for taxation. No depreciation was claimed on the said factory premises for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is explained that now both the P a g e | 15 ITA No.2647/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Elenjickamalil V. Thomas v. DCIT-22(3), Mumbai components are broken into land

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

house property despite the fact that the assessee being not owner of the said property. The explanation put forward by the assessee is bonafide which takes it out from the clutches of penalty provisions as are contained in Section 271(1

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

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

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

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

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed