AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10A of the Act is not due to any inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee but on a purely presumptive basis. That being the case, in our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to be visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, in the course

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

5 Maneesh Pharmaceuticals., AY 2010-11 such excess deduction deliberately with the intention of reducing his tax liability. In the given set of facts, assessee already had carried forward business losses which continued in the subsequent years and thus there was no occasion for it to reduce its tax liability by claiming higher deduction u/s.10B

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)

10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption in Explanation-1 of section 271

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

5 (a) The learned AO/Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing deduction under Section 10A of the amounting to Rs. 30,80,76,458, in respect of the profits earned by the Pune Unit- II of the Appellant, under the provisions of erstwhile sub-section (9) of Section 10A of the Act on account of the change in shareholding

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

5 (a) The learned AO/Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing deduction under Section 10A of the amounting to Rs. 30,80,76,458, in respect of the profits earned by the Pune Unit- II of the Appellant, under the provisions of erstwhile sub-section (9) of Section 10A of the Act on account of the change in shareholding

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

section 271(1)(c) and Explanation offered by the assessee could not be said to be mala fide. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty." 6. In the instant case, the assessee having disclosed all the particulars qua the interest on FDRs and loans in the claim made u/s 10A

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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant as premature. The Assessee prays that the learned AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings so initiated. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal‟‟. 2.2 Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. Facts

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

10A, 32, etc. 3 M/s. Powerica Ltd. made in the total income as per provisions of I.T. Act, 1961 and also because of the incorrect computation of book profits u/s. 115JB of I.T. Act, 1961 made by the assessee in the return of income filed on 21/09/2008 declaring book profits at Rs.122,62,53,654/- u/s. 115JB

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the position adopted by the Appellant is in fullest conformity with the decision of CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT has further failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant h. not furnished inaccurate

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10) J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Osd), Range-8(2), Prism Towers, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Mumbai (Respondent) Link Road, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 104 Pan : Aabcd0503B (Appellant)

10A of the Act. 4. On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the present case, the DCIT erred in levying interest of Rs. 43,85,85,155 under Section 234B of the Act. 5. On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the DCIT has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271