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) ..

u/s. 271(1)(c) on account o f a s s e s s e e a c c e p t i n g l o n g t e r m c a p i t a l g a i n o f R s . 40,79,195/- requires to be deleted as the assessee has demonstrated

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)

exempted category which includes milk the figure of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Rs.1,30,57,613/- is mentioned. Raw milk is included in the class of products sold. vi. Invalidity of notices issued u/s,271(1}(c):- It was contended that the facts u/s.274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether there

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)

exempted category which includes milk the figure of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Rs.1,30,57,613/- is mentioned. Raw milk is included in the class of products sold. vi. Invalidity of notices issued u/s,271(1}(c):- It was contended that the facts u/s.274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether there

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

exemption u/s 10AA in respect of SEZ at Chennai but while framing the assessment the during the course of assessment proceedings the AO allowed the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and also no discrepancy was pointed out while initiating the penalty u/s 271

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

exemption u/s 10AA in respect of SEZ at Chennai but while framing the assessment the during the course of assessment proceedings the AO allowed the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and also no discrepancy was pointed out while initiating the penalty u/s 271

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption

GAUTAM PURANMAL PODDAR,KALYAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption

ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

exempt from tax then the loss from such source could not be set off from another source under the same head of income. In view of the above, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court.by dismissing the appeals filed by the Department affirmed

PEGASUS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

exempt from tax then the loss from such source could not be set off from another source under the same head of income. In view of the above, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court.by dismissing the appeals filed by the Department affirmed

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

exemption u/s 11 of the Act as the assessee was not registered u/s 12Aof the I.T. Act. The assessment was made in the status of an AOP. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

exemption u/s 11 of the Act as the assessee was not registered u/s 12Aof the I.T. Act. The assessment was made in the status of an AOP. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

AMI BUILDERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

exemption in s. 10(33) applied to a loss as well and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c).The CIT(A) confirmed

OASIS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumarआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5501/Mum/2014 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10) Oasis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 119-121/B,Shrikant Chambers Tax, Circle 10(2) Vs. Sion Trombay Road, 4Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Near R K Studio, M K Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco5715H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

Exemption u/s10B of the Act, the matter has been restored to the file of the AO to determine the same afresh in accordance with law as per the directions of the Tribunal and the matter is still pending before the AO. In these facts, we cancel the penalty levied u/s 271

M/S.ROBUST TRANSPORTATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Under the very scheme of things, the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act i.e. the apportionment of expenditure attributable to earning exempt/non- taxable income cannot be done on a precise, numerical and mathematical basis but can, at best, be estimated. In this scenario an addition on account of disallowance u/s

JM FINANCIAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J M SHARE & STOCK BROKERS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 24.3.2014. 4.7.1. We find that the decision rendered hereinabove for the Asst Year 1998-99 on this technical issue of not striking off the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice would hold good for this asst year also except with variance in figures. Hence we have no hesitation in cancelling the levy

SHAKIL HAMID SHEIKH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

exempt and Assessee is regularly paying Income Tax and therefore penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,50,368/- may be deleted

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is highly debatable. The claim made u/s. 11 of the Act was also appears to be bonafide claim and there is no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by assessee. In the circumstances, we delete the penalty levied u/s. 271

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is highly debatable. The claim made u/s. 11 of the Act was also appears to be bonafide claim and there is no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by assessee. In the circumstances, we delete the penalty levied u/s. 271