RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as a mistake apparent from record u/s. 154 which is not even remotely discernable from the assessment order passed.” 3. Brief facts are that for the relevant Assessment Year 2009-10 assessment was framed under section

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the tax auditors have verified and certified the additions to the fixed assets u/s 44AB ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the tax auditors have verified and certified the additions to the fixed assets u/s 44AB ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the tax auditors have verified and certified the additions to the fixed assets u/s 44AB ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the tax auditors have verified and certified the additions to the fixed assets u/s 44AB ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

penalty order and also the application of Explanation to section 271(1)(c). On appeal by the assessee, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 22 “There was no justification for the conclusion that the latter return was not a ‘revised return’ as contemplated under section 139(5). The incorrectness in the original return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be deleted, since the appellant is assessed to tax under MAT provisions and the penalty has been levied with reference to additions / disallowances made under the normal provisions of the Act.\n4.1 As per the order of the AO dated 05.02.2021 giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

MEGAYIELDS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

154 of the Act vide order dated 29.11.2011, to NIL by setting off previous year’s loss, the penalty proceedings initiated should be dropped. This explanation of the assessee was rejected as the AO was of the view that setting off of previous year’s loss does not obviate the fact that the assessee has adjusted losses from speculation against

TATA COMMUNICATION TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11

section 154 of the Act and proceeding to uphold the levy of penalty even without waiting for the disposal of the rectification application filed by the Appellant. 3. upholding the penalty order passed by the learned AO levying penalty of Rs. 22,62,959/- u/s 271

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

154 of the Act dated 29.06.2018 wherein assessee’s claim regarding carry forward of loss of ₹.13,53,82,605/- was disallowed and further, claim regarding depreciation was restricted to ₹.14,71,20,377/- as against ₹.19,96,45,361/- claimed by the assessee. 3. With regard to the above said adjustments, Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA ) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 271(l) was bad in law. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, amend, alter, modify or substitute any of the above ground as an when advised 2.2 Assessment Year 2002-03 “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law: - 1. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271

OASIS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumarआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5501/Mum/2014 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10) Oasis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 119-121/B,Shrikant Chambers Tax, Circle 10(2) Vs. Sion Trombay Road, 4Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Near R K Studio, M K Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco5715H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

u/s 154 of the Act revising the penalty imposed to Rs. 4,38,568/-.The assessee did not challenge the quantum additions before the First Appellate Authority(FAA) and the assessment attained finality. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by rejecting the contentions and submissions

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MARKSANS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

u/s 271(1)(c) on aforesaid disallowances are cancelled and the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The ground no. 2 as raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. Since we have already deleted the penalty on merits, the legal issue as raised in ground no. 1 is not being adjudicated as the same has become purely academic

PRIME DOWN TOWN ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 21, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit Central Circle-21 M/S Prime Down Town Estates 408, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Pvt.Ltd., Vs. 11Th Floor, Plaza, Panchasheel M.K.Marg Mumbai-400 020 Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi Mumbai-400 007 Pan Aaacp2635B (Revenue) (Assessee) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Prime Down Town Estates Dcit Central Circle-21 Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 11Th Floor, Plaza, Panchasheel Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi Mumbai-400 007 Pan Aaacp2635B (Assessee) (Revenue)

154 and did not tantamount to setting aside of the order of the AO. Accordingly, the plea raised by the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2 and 3 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 12. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against theconfirmation of penalty on the aggregate addition

ACIT CEN CIR 21, MUMBAI vs. PRIME DOWN TOWN ESTATES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit Central Circle-21 M/S Prime Down Town Estates 408, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Pvt.Ltd., Vs. 11Th Floor, Plaza, Panchasheel M.K.Marg Mumbai-400 020 Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi Mumbai-400 007 Pan Aaacp2635B (Revenue) (Assessee) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Prime Down Town Estates Dcit Central Circle-21 Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 11Th Floor, Plaza, Panchasheel Hughes Road, 55 Gamdevi Mumbai-400 007 Pan Aaacp2635B (Assessee) (Revenue)

154 and did not tantamount to setting aside of the order of the AO. Accordingly, the plea raised by the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2 and 3 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 12. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against theconfirmation of penalty on the aggregate addition

AJAY LOKNATH LOHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

U/s 271(l)(c) of Rs.3.40.980A 2. failed to appreciate that there is neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) is bad in law. 2 ITA 2998/Mum/2017 3. erred in ignoring the facts that addition is made only on estimated basis on account of difference

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

271] [or undersection 272A] [***] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or an order passed by a [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or a [Principal Director General or] Director General or a [Principal Director or] Director under section 272A; [or]] [(d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

154, dated 26.12.2011 reduced the same to Rs.1,45,96,094/-. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the facts of the case concluded that though the raising