JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 M/S Jindal Drugs Ltd., The A.C.I.T. Central Circle-8, Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B & C, Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Annex, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj1000A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-2006 The D.C.I.T. Central Circle-8, M/S Jindal Drugs Ltd., Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B & C, Old Cgo Annex, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Pan: Aaacj1000A (Appellant) (Respondent)

145A in spite of the Bombay High court Judgement in the case of Loknete Bala Saheb Desai SSL LTD 59 DTR 169. 2. The learned AO and CIT (A)-37 erred in levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c) on disallowance u/s

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

DCIT 4 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SKF INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 4.3.8 In view of the above discussion, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied in respect of the adjustment of Rs. 4,10,30,720/- made u/s. 145A

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealing of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The A.O. found that (viii) the assessee has claimed consultancy charges Of Rs.3,21,98,592/- in the books of accounts. The assessee has filed the details and explanations referred at para12.1 but the AO was not satisfied

L'OREAL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 130/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2007-08) It(Tp)A No.130/Mum/2013(A.Y.2007-08) M/S. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaacl0738K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

u/s 145A of the Act. The findings of CIT(A) in the impugned order are set aside and ground no.2 of the appeal is allowed. 12 IT(TP)A NO.130/MUM/2013(A.Y.2007-08) 15. In ground No.3 of appeal, the assessee has assailed penalty proceedings initiated under section 271

SANDOZ P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunatha

u/s. 37(1) of the Act in respect of payments purportedly made to the Doctors. Aggrieved by the order of TPO and the disallowance made in the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The objections of the assesse on aforementioned adjustments/disallowances were rejected in toto by the DRP. The Assessing Officer passed impugned

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act and deleted the penalty. It is settled legal position that where two legally sustainable views are possible and the assessee has followed one of such view in preference of the other the same cannot be considered as a case of concealment of income. Moreover, the issue is debatable one and as per our considered

BLUES INNOVATIONS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCB4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against

THE DY CIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA PROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) of the IT Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. Further the assessee company without prejudice argued that the company has not claimed service tax/work contract tax in the P&L account and therefore these are not claimed as expenses and accordingly the provisions of section

SAGARKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-32(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Penalty is also initiated u/s.274 r.w.s. 271B for not audited books of accounts.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the plea of the assessee by holding as under: - “5.4 I have considered the submission of the appellant

PANTHER FINCAP & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in quantum) is dismissed, and that challenging the levy of penalty u/s

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2849/Mum/2008 & & 2374/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Panther Fincap & Management Services Asst. Cit, Central Circle 40, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 3045 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2005-06. Quantum Appeal (in ITA No. 2849/Mum/2008) 2. The principal issue arising in this appeal; the Revenue being not in appeal, is the maintainability of the loss arising to the assessee on the diminution in the value of the shares in Global Trust Bank

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 18.6 'Further the amount added to the opening stock by the assesses is not allowed as the addition made last year in the closing stock is not accepted by the assessee and it is in appeal. The assessee also failed to respond