SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business entities. The assessee filed his he assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/ declaring total income at Rs.1

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business entities. The assessee filed his he assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/ declaring total income at Rs.1

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

business entities. The assessee filed his he assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/ declaring total income at Rs.1

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that under Rule 8D particular method of computation has been prescribed for computation of the disallowance which itself does not make assessee liable for filing inaccurate particulars of the income. All the facts in respect of claim of disallowance u/s 14A were duly available on record and AO has not pointed

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

271(1) of the Act if the assessee fails to submit return of income fails to submit return of income u/s 139 of the Act u/s 139 of the Act without reasonable cause within the period prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act within the period prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act within the period prescribed u/s

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

business of manufacturing and export of large diameter carbon steel l diameter carbon steel line pipes for various high pressure transport ine pipes for various high pressure transport applications. The assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.154

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

business of manufacturing and export of large diameter carbon steel l diameter carbon steel line pipes for various high pressure transport ine pipes for various high pressure transport applications. The assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.154

ASCOT REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income at Rs. 19,02,023/- after making a disallowance of the business promotion expenses claimed by the assessee company amounting to Rs. 41,56,357/-. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ASCOT REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

income at Rs. 19,02,023/- after making a disallowance of the business promotion expenses claimed by the assessee company amounting to Rs. 41,56,357/-. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

business entities. The assessee filed his\noriginal return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014\ndeclaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/-. The return of income\nwas selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') was completed on\n28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.2

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

business entities. The assessee filed his\noriginal return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2014\ndeclaring total income at Rs.1,80,57,280/-. The return of income\nwas selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') was completed on\n28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.2

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas\nthe appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that\nunder Rule 8D particular method of computation has been\nprescribed for computation of the disallowance which itself does not\nmake assessee liable for filing inaccurate particulars of the income.\nAll the facts in respect of claim of disallowance u/s 14A were duly\navailable on record and AO has not pointed

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." In the Appellant's case also, the addition is made on adhoc basis by estimating profit embedded

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." In the Appellant's case also, the addition is made on adhoc basis by estimating profit embedded

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. B. The CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the revised returned income was accepted offering the additional income to tax without the Income Tax Officer finding out any cogent material. C. Your appellant prays that the penalty levied may please be deleted

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision