ASST CIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. JUMANA GOOLAM VAHANVATI, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3901/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jumana Goolam Vahanvati Assistant Commissioner Of Buckley Court, Income-Tax 17(2) बनाम/ 21St & 22Nd Duplex No.6 R.No.134 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba M.K.Road Mumbai-400 039 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abupv-1085-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Niyanta Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr

Section 111A. However, upon perusal, it was found that STCG of Rs.108.90 Lacs was earned on sale of shares of an entity namely BSE Ltd., which were not listed shares and therefore, not eligible to be taxed at concessional rate u/s 111A. The assessee, while accepting the same, submitted that the said transaction was claimed u/s 111A due to inadvertent

VIDYASAGAR MAHAVIR PRASAD SAH,MUMBAI vs. ADCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

Section 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. (5) CIT(A) further erred in this connection in holding that principles laid down in CIT v. NAYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS 368 ITR 722 (BOM) are not applicable to Appellant's case and still further erred in relying on CIT v. SHREE COPAL HOUSING & PLANTATION CORPORATION DATED 06.02.18 (BOM). (6) CIT(A) further

SHAILENDRA NAHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Mr. Shailendra Nahar Acit 25(2) 201, H Panchavan C-10, 412 Bkc Complex, Complex, Mumbai-400051 V. Laxman Mhatre Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aavpn1018L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

penalty of Rs. 2,18,189/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has also submitted before us that it was a mistake of Chartered Accountant who included the short term capital gains on sale of shares to the tune of Rs. 16,24,981/- which was chargeable to income-tax within provisions of Section 111A

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is not competent person to pass the penalty order u/s. 271B and impugned order levying penalty u/s. 271B dated 10.5.2013 in the present case has been passed by learned CIT(A). Therefore the order of learned CIT(A) is in gross

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are initiated separately for all the issues of addition discussed above for underreporting of income.” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the Assessing Officer held that STCG (Non STT Paid) amounting to INR.1,92,80,432/- was taxable at the rate of 30% under Section 115AD of the Act and the STCG (STT Paid) of INR.5

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

SHRI DILIP J. THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately (Addition For A.Y. 2006-07 INR at Rs.10,50,41,824/-) 11. Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO in his detailed order and all his relevant observations; we shall discuss in the subsequent paragraphs. 12. Before us, the assessee representing himself, first of all submitted that

LADDERUP FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

111A, ii. Receipt of large value foreign remittance as reported in Form 15CA, and iii. Sale of property reported in Form 26QB. 3. Notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaires calling for details and explanations

EMERGING MARKETS GROWTH FUND, INC,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT (IT)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a non-resident company incorporated under United States of America and registered with the Security and Exchange Board as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII), filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total loss

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing