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

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

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 )-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

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

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

section 23(1)(c). In other words, vacancy allowance can be given\nonly when the property is let and vacant for part of the year. No contrary\njudgment of any other High court or the Hon'ble Apex Court has been\nbrought to our notice. Accordingly, the claim of vacancy allowance in\nrespect of 12 units which remained vacant

UNICORN INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 271 of the Act. The of the Act. The relevant part of the order of Assessing relevant part of the order of Assessing officer is reproduced as under: officer is reproduced as under: “21. In spite of giving several opportunities, the assessee company has 21. In spite of giving several opportunities, the assessee company has 21. In spite

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

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.AABCE0443R Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Smt. Sonia Kumar Sr. AR Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of 14.10.2022 Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(CIT(A))-4 Mumbai 2 M/s Phoenix International

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)(c

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

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property’ which is nothing but furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c

DAMASK PROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanm/S. Damask Projects Pvt. Ltd. 167, Readymoney Terrace Dr. Annie Besant Road ……………. Appellant Worli Naka, Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaccd5994P V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(2), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Firoz B. Andhyarujina Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

house property. In the meanwhile, on the basis of disallowances / addition made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 112 of the I.T. Act. iv. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the direction of ld. the CIT(A) to the A.O to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on account of long term capital gain offered by the assessee on structured product assessee does not violate

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) ..

section 271 (1)(c) and same is directed to be deleted. " d) CIT vs. Societex- ITA 1190/2011 Delhi HC Held that No s. 27I(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim caused by "bona fide mistake" The AO levied s. 271 (1)(c) penalty in respect of two issues: (i) claim of depreciation in respect of properties that were assessed under

SACHIN MANOHAR DESHMUKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Sachin Manohar Deshmukh Acit-10(2), बिधम/ Man Sneh Bungalow, P.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Deshmukhwadi Complex New Marine Lines, Vs. Mulund, (W), Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400080 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpd1129L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

house property‟. 4. The A.O while framing the assessment observed that though the assessee had earned income from other sources, but however, had in his return of income shown loss from „other sources‟ of Rs. 37,55,217/-. The A.O after perusing the computation of income of the assessee observed that the assessee had claimed net loss

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