PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , by holding as under:- I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 “ 4. I have considered the submissions of the assessee. First issue related to rejection of books of account and estimation of income. During the course of Search and Seizure action it was notices that the assessee did not maintain proper record regarding inward, outward, production

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , by holding as under:- I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 “ 4. I have considered the submissions of the assessee. First issue related to rejection of books of account and estimation of income. During the course of Search and Seizure action it was notices that the assessee did not maintain proper record regarding inward, outward, production

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee has raised the following common grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming/confirming the order of AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,38,04,246/- for A.Y. 1997-98, Rs.2,20,85,000/- for A.Y. 1999-2000 and Rs.4,08,34,150

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee has raised the following common grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming/confirming the order of AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,38,04,246/- for A.Y. 1997-98, Rs.2,20,85,000/- for A.Y. 1999-2000 and Rs.4,08,34,150

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee has raised the following common grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming/confirming the order of AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,38,04,246/- for A.Y. 1997-98, Rs.2,20,85,000/- for A.Y. 1999-2000 and Rs.4,08,34,150

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. [Para 10] Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed." 5.3 It has been held in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H) following CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150

NAVNITLAL K PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

150% of tax sought to be evaded on the income declared/addition made by the Assessing Officer . 3.7 On appeal, the CIT(A), though confirmed the levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer ; however, restricted the same to100% of the tax sought to be availed. 4 Before us, the learned A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the notice under

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

271(l)(c) in their case should not be levied. For the same, they relied upon the decision given in the case of 124 ITR 15 - Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. (SC), 168 ITR 705 (SC) (Sir Shadilal Sugar & Gen, Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT), 211 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court), Hindustan Steel v/s. State of Orissa

GAURISHANKAR CHAUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 274 of the said Act was given to the assessee before imposing the penalty by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee furnished his explanation, which has been taken into consideration in the order. The mandatory requirement of obtaining the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was followed. The penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer was reduced

GAURISHANKAR CHAUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 274 of the said Act was given to the assessee before imposing the penalty by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee furnished his explanation, which has been taken into consideration in the order. The mandatory requirement of obtaining the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was followed. The penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer was reduced

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

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

VYANJAN HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Blem/S Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcv7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied came up for A.Y. 2012-13, and when the matter carried before the Tribunal by the Revenue the Tribunal sustained the order of 7 M/s Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. While deleting the penalty the Tribunal observed as under: 9. We have heard the rival submissions

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

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,THANE vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, THANE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

150% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and it comes to Rs. 30,01,597/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to reduce the quantum of penalty to Rs. 20,01,064/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits, before

ESSJAY ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/S Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central V. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafe 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2002 i.e. from assessment year 2002-03 onwards according to which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied even if the assessed income is negative. Thus, the A.O. concluded that the assessee concealed the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect

BANGGREEN HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

150 Taxman 4) (Mum.-Trib.) In support of his third preposition, the ld. AR of the assessee argued that the income from letting out is one of the sole objects of the assessee and accordingly rental income was assessable under the head “Business Income” and the corresponding expenses and depreciation are allowable. In support of submission that

GAWANDE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

150 TTJ 159. 5. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Having considered the facts and material on record, we find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment by assessing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act as the income