KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

u/s 40(a) in earlier assessment years. However, on verification it was found that the assessee had added back interest amount of Rs. 2,78,83,738/- only during the earlier assessment years. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1,76,88,923/- (4,55,72,663-2,78,83,738) was made to total income under the normal provisions

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.”\n2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: -\n“Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

MRS SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI, VIRAR EAST

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

127 of the paper\nbook filed before us at the time of original appeallate proceedings, We find\nthat assessee had responded to the said enhancement notice which is enclosed\nin pages 128-131 of the paper book filed before us at the time of original\nappellate proceedings. In the said reply letter dated 10/01/2018 addressed by\nthe assessee

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

127 of the paper\nbook filed before us at the time of original appeallate proceedings, We find\nthat assessee had responded to the said enhancement notice which is enclosed\nin pages 128-131 of the paper book filed before us at the time of original\nappellate proceedings. In the said reply letter dated 10/01/2018 addressed by\nthe assessee

JT. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

127 of the paper\nbook filed before us at the time of original appeallate proceedings, We find\nthat assessee had responded to the said enhancement notice which is enclosed\nin pages 128-131 of the paper book filed before us at the time of original\nappellate proceedings. In the said reply letter dated 10/01/2018 addressed by\nthe assessee

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated

MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

penalty\nnotice u/s 274 for action u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act which\ndeserves to be quashed in view of the facts and circumstances\nof the case.\nThe appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the\nLd. CIT (A) and/ or any other relief

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee\npartly allowed

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even\nthough no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.”\n2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional\ngrounds of appeal: -\n“Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the\nappellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

127 of the paper\nbook filed before us at the time of original appeallate proceedings, We find\nthat assessee had responded to the said enhancement notice which is enclosed\nin pages 128-131 of the paper book filed before us at the time of original\nappellate proceedings. In the said reply letter dated 10/01/2018 addressed by\nthe assessee

DCIT CIR. 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

127 of the paper\nbook filed before us at the time of original appeallate proceedings, We find\nthat assessee had responded to the said enhancement notice which is enclosed\nin pages 128-131 of the paper book filed before us at the time of original\nappellate proceedings. In the said reply letter dated 10/01/2018 addressed by\nthe assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

ADIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability