THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

163 (Karnataka) [19/09/1995], wherein the deduction for mine reclamation expenses incurred in terms of Rule 34 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 was allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. During the course of the hearing, it was pointed out by the Learn Department Representative that in the present case the Assessee had not only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NEVALES NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of Rs. 48,30,254/-us. 438 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" The Hon'ble Court held that the ambiguity with regard to the year of allowability of expenses for such a transition period should not be adversely viewed for the purpose of levy of penalty and more over all the particulars

PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, notice 148 . Accordingly, notice 148 was issued to the assessee. was issued to the assessee. It filed return on 13.04.2019 in compliance of n compliance of notice by declaring total income of Rs. 3,07,32,590/ notice by declaring total income of Rs. 3,07,32,590/-. During the course During

CLASSIC SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

section 274 r.w.s. 271 is a printed form of notice not specifying the charge brought against the appellants that is, whether it is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment thereof, and as such, the notice suffers from the virus of non-application of mind and hence, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

SUSHIL RAJENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961\nAmount (in Rs.)\n23,31,673-\n17,67,167/-\n5,64 506/-\n11,29,012/-\n11,29,012/-\"\n3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld\nthe penalty levied by the AO by holding that but for the scrutiny assessment the\nunder reporting of income in consequence

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”\n3.\nIn Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the Transfer Pricing\n(TP) adjustment on account of payment of Royalty to Inventio AG. In this\nregard, during the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee\nand the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) have entered into

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated

SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”\n3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the Transfer Pricing\n(TP) adjustment on account of payment of Royalty to Inventio AG. In this\nregard, during the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee\nand the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) have entered into

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and has also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since the ground challenging the reopening

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act on claim of deduction u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act on claim of deduction u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act – Rs 2,62,53,000/ Rs 2,62,53,000/- We find that this is only concerned with workin We find that this is only concerned with workin

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act on claim of deduction u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act on claim of deduction u/s 80IA and u/s 10B of the Act – Rs 2,62,53,000/ Rs 2,62,53,000/- We find that this is only concerned with workin We find that this is only concerned with workin