INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act can be sustained on such addition. Honourable Gujarat High court in RAMESHCHANDRA A SHAH 019. VERSUS ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE 3 OR HIS SUCCESSOR TAX APPEAL NO. 800 of 2008 dated August 10, 2016, on the question of law " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

u/s 80IC of the Act 02. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- ““Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant) craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -7(2) (hereinafter referred

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. M/s the assessee i.e. M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), , MUMBAI vs. MUKESHKUMAR SOMATMALJI DOSHI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Income Tax Officer Doshi, Ward 19(2)(2) 63/A, 1St Khumbharwada Lane, Room No.503, Bhandari Street, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Near Goel Deval, Lalgaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abqpd5578B

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act @ 12.5% on alleged purchases of Rs. 61 ,77,214/- without considering the fact that the assessee, when asked to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions and parties /suppliers, has neither produced any parties for verification nor submitted vital documents, evidences before AO, which proves that the purchases were non- genuine

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption

HEMANT SHRIDHAR PHATAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(5) PRESENTLY-ITO-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since both the appeals germinate from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA NO.267/MUM/2022-A.Y. 2013-14: 2. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee in its return of income claimed exemption

SYSTEM A D SOLUTION INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 11(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income.” 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant is a company engaged in the business of acoustic sound systems for theatres, broadly covered under works contract. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the Appellant did not file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently

DINESHCHANDRA D. CHHAJED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SHRI YOGESH P.THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CENT.CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SMT HARHSA NITIN THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SHRI YOGESH P. THAKKAR,PANVEL vs. THE DCIT , CC-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

NISHA YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

SMT. HARSH A NITIN THAKKAR,RAIGAD vs. THE DCIT CENT. CIR -3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

271(1)(c ) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 15.6.2 There is a cost attached to getting undisclosed income converted into disclosed income without attracting penalty & prosecution and a much higher cost to convert undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income. As per the prevailing rate of conversion, it is held that the assesseee

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Section 234D and 244A of the Act and the same is disposed off as being consequential in nature with the directions to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the same as per law. Ground No. 9 17. Ground No. 9 raised by the Assessee pertains incorrect computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. In this regard

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI, MUMBAI

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned in the Assessment Orders.\np.\nIn the case