GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. b) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of additional income of INR 1,95,86,904 which has been suo moto offered to tax. c) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of 2 taxability of soft

ZODIAC VENTURES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

14A and added to the total income of the assessee. This is the fit case for initiated of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Therefore, penalty notice u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that

ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LIMITED ,CHURCHGATE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable. Therefore, the penalty imposed on this addition is bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O had not ticked in the notice issued for levying penalty whether he intended to charge penalty for underreporting or for misreporting. The penalty notice does not clarify the same and that

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the\nmatter.\nGround 5 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act\n5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in charging interest of Rs. 2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 (2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

PRIYAA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\neven in respect of undisclosed income detected as a result of the search.\ng. Sub-section 2 which has the effect of resembling the application of section\n271(1)(c) makes it doubly sure that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not\napply in cases where a search had taken place and the income

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of cross objections without prejudice to each other and craves, leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objections. 2(a). The assessee has raised the Additional Grounds Of Appeal as under

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 1 (3)92), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

14A of the Act are required to be made. In the given f the Act are required to be made. In the given facts and the acts and the prevailing judicial cleavage on this contentious issue, prevailing judicial cleavage on this contentious issue, prevailing judicial cleavage on this contentious issue, circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity