SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the rea Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are son assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act wrong and contrary to the provision

MRS. SONAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

MRS.TARULATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI (HUF), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2007-08)

section 194A. Once all particulars relating to the income and expenditure have been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the disallowance of the claim will by itself not be sufficient to attract penalty u/s 271

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

u/s. 271(1)(c) in cases where the assessee provides a bonafide explanation for the claims made in the return of income and where the assessee has disclosed all facts and details relating to the same. In support of its claim, the Appellant has also relied on certain judicial precedents, most notably the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court

VIDYASAGAR ENTERPRISES LLP,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 13, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income.” Thus, the assessee company submitted that the AO had before it all the relevant details about this project including cost of project , details and circumstances about this project , dispute and suit filed against the assessee company and the manner

CHANDRAKANT R. MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Chandrakant R. Madhani, The Ito 25(2) (2), 2A/11, Tejmanjul, Tejpal Road, Mumbai Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 Vs. Pan: Aaopm0449D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2017

271 (1) (C) of the Act for concealment of Income on account of non deduction of tax at source invoking provision of Section 40 (a) (ia). 2. The assessee is an individual, not liable to tax Audit u/s 44 AB during the Assessment Year 2011-12 and hence provision of Section 40 (a) (ia) are not applicable. 3. Without prejudice

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

194A) (c) TDS-1941(b) Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, 7,50,200 Section 1941(b) (d) AIR-002 Paid Rs. 2,00,000 or more 10,27,000 against Credit Card bills Total 1,14,49,259 3 Chattanathan Devarajan AY 2014-15 3.1. Since the amount exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax for which

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

194A, 194 C ,194J, 195 etc 4) If the assessee is permitted to short deduct TDS, then the very intended purpose of the Provisions of Chapter XVII-B and the consequence prescribed U/s.40(a}(i) / 40(a)(ia) stand defeated. Further, if this be the case, an assessee who is liable to deduct TDS, say at 20%, shall go scot

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. VIVEK RAMRAO PARASKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

u/s 40(a)(ia), restricted to 5% of total telephone and mobile expenses and further restricted the disallowance of sale promotion expenses to 5% in the impugned order dated 02.01.2013 against which the present appeal is filed before us. 3 ITA No.2808/Mum/2013 Shri Vivek Ramrao Paraskar. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated calls. We have heard

M/S SWANI SPICES MILLS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty of Rs.6,489/- levied by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The background facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,67,02,110/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

194A, 194C, 194J, 195 etc. 3) If the assessee is permitted to short deduct TDS, then the very intended purpose of the Provisions of Chapter XVII-B and the consequence prescribed u/s. 40(a)(i)/ 40(a)(ia) stand defeated. Further, if this be the case, an assessee who is liable to deduct TDS, say at 20% shall go scot

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal