PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

Dividend income was not accounted for, as it was assumed by the Firm, that the same is taxable in the hands of the Partners. In the present case the assessee has not been able to substantiate the entries made in the books of accounts. Therefore, this case law is also not applicable to the assessee's case. iii) The decision

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

Dividend income was not accounted for, as it was assumed by the Firm, that the same is taxable in the hands of the Partners. In the present case the assessee has not been able to substantiate the entries made in the books of accounts. Therefore, this case law is also not applicable to the assessee's case. iii) The decision

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the appellant were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Couurt upheld the view of the Tribunal holding that

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

dividend from those shares. The company in its return claimed disallowance of the amount of expenditure of Rs.28,77,242/- u/s 14A of the Act. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income

AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

deemed dividend and adding transactions not disclosed in the books. It appears that the assessee had claimed all administrative expenses as deduction against long term capital gain and the same was rejected by the AO. In the appeal filed before Ld CIT(A), the first appellate authority deleted all the additions/adjustments made by the AO. The revenue preferred appeal challenging

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. DHAVAL D SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Dhaval D. Shah Income, Central Smag House, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle2(3), Old Cgo Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Parle (W) Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400010 Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 08/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhaval D. Shah Dy. Commissioner Of Smag House, 1St Floor, Income, Central Vs. Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Circle2(3), Old Cgo Parle (W) Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400010 Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

Deemed dividend 1,17,50,000 Total addition 1,37,07,112 In the above assessment order completed u/s 143(3), the AO initiated the penalty u/s 271

UNITED INK & VARNISH CO.P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S. United Ink & Varnish Vs. Dcit, Range-8(3), Mumbai Co. Pvt. Ltd., (Respondent) 27, Tejpal Scheme Road No. 5, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 57. Pan : Aaacu0086F (Appellant)

dividend from Co-operative Bank Rs.5,000/-. The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 27.9.2013 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded qua the aforesaid three additions. This action of the Assessing Officer has been 4 M/s. United Ink & Varnish Co. Pvt. Ltd. further affirmed

TAHER AFSAR ALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7577/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Taher Afsar Ali, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 24(1(2), 5 Nand Kishore Indl Estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Off Mahakali Caves, Rdm Bandra-Kurla Complex, Andheri(E), Bandra (E), Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabpa0014H

271(1)(2) will not be attracted. 14) Further the assessee did not willingly shown deemed dividend in return of income but it was inadvertent. There was no mensrea on the part of the assessee which is prerequisite for imposing penalty. In view of the above you are requested to drop the penalty proceedings u/s

PPG ASIAN PAINTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ppg Asian Paints Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Asian Ppg Income Tax-2 Range Ltu, Industries Limited), Centre 1 World Trade Centre, Unit No. 1, 4Th Floor, Phoenix Vs. Cuffe Parade, Marketcity, Lbs Marg, Mumbai - 400005 Kurla (West), Mumbai - 400070 Pan: Aaaca8832H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Abhijeet Patankar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019

dividends. Revenue is measured by the charges made to customers or clients for goods supplied and services rendered to them and by the charges and rewards arising from the use of resources by them. It excludes amounts collected on behalf of third parties such as certain taxes. In an agency relationship, the revenue is the amount of commission

ANSHUL SPECIALITY MOLECULES . P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Anshul Speciality Molecules Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central (Formerly Anshul Specialty Circle-6(3), Mumbai Molecules Ltd,.) 13, Aradhana Industrial Development Corporation, Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No.Aabca4003H Appellant) .. Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s. 2(22) (e) of the Act. 4. We have

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income by way of claiming expenditure not allowable as the provisions of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowance of interest expenditure

ANSHUL SPAECIALTY MOLECULES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made towards deemed dividend u/s. 2(22) (e) of the Act. 4. We have

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income