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

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

PRASHANT KIRIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are invalid and bad in law. Prayer :- 1. In the light of the above grounds, your appellant prays that the above disallowances/additions be deleted as contrary to facts and law and the income as per the return be restored. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any of the above

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 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

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

JAYSHREE KIRIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invalid and bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 26.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.31,81,270/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Subsequently, Information was received vide letter No. DDIT

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

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