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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act." 3. "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) without appreciating the fact that the travelling expenditure was incurred in foreign currency (which was indirectly recovered by the assessee from its subsidiary company based

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) :

7 & 8 of assessee’s appeal are connected with revenue’s grounds and therefore, the same are adjudicated along with revenue’s appeal as given in succeeding paragraphs. Revenue’s Appeal for AY 2003-04, ITA No.4928/Mum/2010 10. Deduction u/s 10A 10.1 The assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A for Rs.2486.98 Lacs with respect to three business undertakings. The business carried

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

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)

7,96,233/- and interest on staff loan Rs.1,377/- as income falling under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession' eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. As far as the contention of the learned DR that section 10A was an exemption provision whereas section 80HHC is a deduction provision, we find that Section 10A

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same

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

section 147 of the Act. Vide ITA No. 1844/Mum/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (c) of the Act. 2. Since, all these appeals pertain to the same