RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) ; in show cause notice dated 15.01.2014, admittedly the AO has not struck off between concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income; in penalty order at para 5, AO holds “by making such improper claim of depreciation, the assessee has willfully reduced its incidence of taxation and has thereby concealed its income as well as furnished

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) ..

271(1)( c ) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the income in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act but the additional income was shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act after search operation was conducted on the assessee. In our opinion

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) ..

271(1)( c ) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the income in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act but the additional income was shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act after search operation was conducted on the assessee. In our opinion

J.P MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 7 of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 3.1. During the course of hearing it was stated at the very out set by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that all the grounds are covered with the order of the Tribunal of earlier years in assessee

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

10A/ 10B\nof the Act from the total income computed by him, particularly on account\nof the disallowance of Rs. 29,47,184, referred to in ground 2 above.\n3.2. Without prejudice to 3.1 above, the relief should be granted in\n assessment year 2010-2011 wherein the Company has reversed\nprovision of Rs. 66,71,400 and offered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

section 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed particulars of income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We are not concerned with the merits of the case for the claim made by the assessee u/s 10B of the Act, but all that is necessary to be examined for our purposes

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MICROWORLD SOFTWARE SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4834/Mum/2015, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

sections. The assessee had given all the particulars of income and had disclosed all facts to the AO in relation to claim for deduction u/s 10A & 8OHHE of the Act. He had discharged the onus cast on it in terms of explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Disallowance of claim for deductions u/s 10A & 80HHE

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Ground no.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 46. Ground nos. 2 to 4 is with regard to the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 42,98,30,119/- on the acquisition of MSA from foreign AE WCIL. Since for A.Y. 2011-12 we have

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Ground no.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 46. Ground nos. 2 to 4 is with regard to the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 42,98,30,119/- on the acquisition of MSA from foreign AE WCIL. Since for A.Y. 2011-12 we have

TCS-E-SERVE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS E-SEREVE INTERNAIONTAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed since the only issue in revenue’s appeal is deduction u/s 10A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5089/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5090/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Tata Consultancy Services Limited Dcit- 9(1) / 9(3) (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve Ltd Aaykar Bhawan बिाम With Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) M.K.Road / Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-4480-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4928/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4929/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5478/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7446/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7447/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Acit, Range-9(3) / Circle-9(3) Tata Consultancy Services Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve Ltd बिाम Mumbai-400 020 With Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) / Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-4480-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for these two years. One more appeal by revenue is for AY 2010-11. However, it is admitted position that facts as well as issues are quite identical in all the years and adjudication in any year shall substantially apply to other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, cross-appeals

MANISH P. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.853 /Mum/2016 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Manish P Shah,402, Rajendra बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 16(1)(2), Vihar, 12Th Khetwadi Cross Mumbai. Vs. Lane, Mumbai-400004 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Amxpso901R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Navneet Kumar Arora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Premanand J सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :17.5.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.12.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 11,46,990/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.6,35,503/- & Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Act For Concealing The Particulars Of Income & Furnishing In Accurate Particulars Of Income. The Assessee, A Proprietor Of M/S

u/s 10A. The relevant extracts of the said decision are as under:- “12. The issue whether such disallowable item of interest under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calls for penalty under section 271

WILLIS PROCESSING SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6877/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

10A of the Act. Interest 19. erred in computing the interest under Section 234B of the Act. Penalty Proceeding. 20. erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C). The Appellant craves Ieave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. POWERICA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendr Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazdcit (Large Taxpayer Unit)-1 M/S. Powerica Ltd. World Trade Centre, Centre-1 9Th Floor, Bakhtawar Vs. 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Nariman Point Mumbai 400005 Mumbai 400021 Pan - Aaacp3812E Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) was in respect of the following additions made to the total income of the assessee while completing the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.10.2010: - (i) Disallowance of deduction under section 10A `14,07,352/- `84,00,179/- (ii) Disallowance under section 43B ` 1,214 (iii) Disallowance under section 80IB

ITO 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring

MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2)(OSD), MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring

MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring

DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA ENGG. SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring

MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. WD. 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring

DCIT CIR 2(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

section 10A, ignoring the fact that business done in the New STP unit was a continuation of the business done by Non STP unit and hence ineligible for deduction u/s 10A. 10. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 18.26 crores u/s 10A of the Act ignoring