OPTIONS DEVELOPRS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CE CIR 22, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

271(1)(c) was held to be not justified.” 2.17. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in another case of SPS Steel & Power Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No.1391 & 1414/Kol/2011) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 30/06/2015. The relevant portion from the aforesaid order is reproduced hereunder:- “6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- 4 ITA.NO.1529 & 1531/MUM/2016 (A.Ys. 2003-04 & 1989 – 99) Prabodhan Prakashan. for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- 4 ITA.NO.1529 & 1531/MUM/2016 (A.Ys. 2003-04 & 1989 – 99) Prabodhan Prakashan. for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s

VIJAY B SHAH (HUF),,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(3)(5),, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevijay B Shah (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(5) Room No.137 12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aabhv7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi

12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN: AABHV7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi Date of Hearing : 26.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned

MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANDRA RECLAMATION vs. DCIT (EXEM) - 2, MUMBAI, PEDDER ROAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of notice us 274 r.ws 271(1)(c) wherein no specific charge of either tiling of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income was mentioned and thereby passing the order of penalty which is to be quashed as per recent judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 2. The assessee is a charitable

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1 THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKHSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income\ntax Act.\n\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in\nrunning various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found\nthat the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income\ntax Act.\n\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in\nrunning various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found\nthat the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. Assessee has filed its return of income

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

12A for exemption u/s 11. The CIT rejected the application on the ground that (a) the objects showed a profit motive, (b) the assessee was charging an interest rate which was higher than that charged by banks & (c) the activity of giving loans was a business activity and not a "charitable purpose" u/s 2(15). On appeal by the assessee

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee has raised several issues in the above grounds of appeal and we shall deal the above issues raised by the assessee ground wise. 6. Ground No.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to Ground Nos. 2 to 12 which

SHI vs. HAMBHO NARAYAN TRUST,MUMBAIVS.DDIT (EXEMPTION) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3029/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Shivshambho Narayan Ddit (Exmp) 1(2) Trust, 5T H Floor, Geetai Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers , V. 716/744, Pandhare Chawl Parel, Lal Baug, Compound, Mumbai 400013 Dagdi Chawl, B.J Marg, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadts8307B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Hence , notice U/s 148 of I T Act, 1961 is being issued to the assessee" ????? ????? alongwith the following documents :- I. Copy of the Notice u/s 148 dated 27.03,2012 II. Copy of the first page of the return of income for A.Y.2005-06 in Form No. 3A showing NIL Income after claiming exemption

BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) WD 1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1356/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse G’ बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer Block, Bandra Kurla (Exemption) Ward-1(1), Vs. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, Ground Floor, Bandra (E), 5Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2358R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri R.K. Sinha (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar ( Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. 1. Penalty Undfr Sect1On 27L(L)(C) Of The Act Rs,1,61,28,828/-: 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same is unwarranted, unreasonable and unjustified.” The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of 3. income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.Nil/- after claiming exemption u/s