D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 43CA of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act r.w.s 271AAB(IA) of the Act vide letter dated 30.12.2018. The vide letter dated

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initi u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

GREEN MAIDEN A 2013 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2105, 1977 & 1978/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2016-17 To 2018-19) Green Maiden A 2013 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Trust, Level 1, Ifc 1, Of Income Tax Esplanade, St. Helier, International Tax Circle Jersey Zip Code-Je2 3Bx 2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 1711,17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtg9795M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Aarti Sathe & Ms. Aasavari Kadam Respondent By : Lovish Kumar Date Of Hearing 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Ground No. 7: Short Grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs. 43,43,533 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LA AO has erred in providing TDS credit of Rs. 4,04,59,501 against the eligible TDS credit

GREEN MAIDEN A 2013 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2105, 1977 & 1978/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2016-17 To 2018-19) Green Maiden A 2013 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Trust, Level 1, Ifc 1, Of Income Tax Esplanade, St. Helier, International Tax Circle Jersey Zip Code-Je2 3Bx 2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 1711,17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtg9795M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Aarti Sathe & Ms. Aasavari Kadam Respondent By : Lovish Kumar Date Of Hearing 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Ground No. 7: Short Grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs. 43,43,533 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LA AO has erred in providing TDS credit of Rs. 4,04,59,501 against the eligible TDS credit

GREEN MAIDEN A 2013 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2105, 1977 & 1978/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2016-17 To 2018-19) Green Maiden A 2013 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Trust, Level 1, Ifc 1, Of Income Tax Esplanade, St. Helier, International Tax Circle Jersey Zip Code-Je2 3Bx 2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 1711,17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtg9795M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Aarti Sathe & Ms. Aasavari Kadam Respondent By : Lovish Kumar Date Of Hearing 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Ground No. 7: Short Grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs. 43,43,533 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LA AO has erred in providing TDS credit of Rs. 4,04,59,501 against the eligible TDS credit

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

RAMNIK SUSHIL CHAUDHRY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT .CIT CIRCLE (3), THANE

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the said Act. The notice in our opinion makes an omnibus statement of the assessee having concealed the particulars of income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The issue about the validity of such notices is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of Full Bench of the jurisdictional High Court

ITO 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MOKXA DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

161 (PB-II) which are kept in record. The Ld.AR in argument stated that the assessee has taken advances and paid advance amount to Rs.56,40,475/- each from the party, M/s Anjani Diam Pvt Ltd. For receiving the advance, the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition under section 69C of the Act. The Ld.AR stated that the transaction with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH HIRACHAND SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

penalty\nproceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income leading to the\nconcealment of income. Assessee preferred an appeal\nagainst the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 before\nLearned CIT(A), who restricted the 100% addition to the\nextent of 5% only and deleted addition of Rs.\n13,08,000/- u/s

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

161/- as against INR 73,13,91,129/- as computed by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP. Without providing any findings for the additional disallowance. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant had provided loan to its AE for acquisition of brand to expand its presence in the European market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALAYN vs. JAMINI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BADLAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue bearing ITA Nos 6081 &

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

161/- are hereby disallowed as expenditure on bogus loans has to be disallowed as well. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for the concealment of particulars of income.” 12. The Ld. AR filed two sets of paper books comprising pages 1 to 722, which are placed on record. During the course of arguments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALYAN vs. JAMINI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BADLAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue bearing ITA Nos 6081 &

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

161/- are hereby disallowed as expenditure on bogus loans has to be disallowed as well. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for the concealment of particulars of income.” 12. The Ld. AR filed two sets of paper books comprising pages 1 to 722, which are placed on record. During the course of arguments

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. (Addition of 4,90,026/-) 11. Aggrieved by the additions made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who, after considering the submissions and material placed on record, confirmed

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI vs. KETAN ANIL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of taxable income.” leading to concealment of taxable income.” Ketan Anil Shah 7 5.1 The Ld.CIT(A), however