MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C\n7,31,851\n81,632\n37,427\n0\n7,69,278\n81,632\n\n\n\nBalance Commission 194H\n6,50,219\n37,427\n6,87,646\n5,64,313\n56,431\n5,07,882\n5,07,880\n1,79,766\n56,431\n1,23,335\n2\n\nVideocon Telecommunication

M/S VODAFONE ESSAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act; and 3 ITA NO.1173/CHANDI/2011(A.Y.2007-08 Ground No.12: Levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 4. Apart from above grounds of appeal, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 14/02/2013 however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee vide application dated 06/05/2013. DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA

VODAFONE ESSAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act; and 3 ITA NO.1173/CHANDI/2011(A.Y.2007-08 Ground No.12: Levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 4. Apart from above grounds of appeal, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 14/02/2013 however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee vide application dated 06/05/2013. DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act 2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of appeal in relation to the following issues: (a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (b) Ground No. (iii): pertaining to disallowance

ANJALI NEERAJ HARDIKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT.CC-6(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

194C. It is submitted that the expenditure were laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the appellant and therefore the same are allowable deduction u/s. 37(1) or section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the deduction after observing and holding as under:- “3.3 The provisions

INSPIRE FILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and the Ld CIT (A) has not given any relief on that value. 3. The issue arising in ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from

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

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

SANDEEP RAMESH KENI,MAHARASHTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the income tax act, 1961, The Appellant found out the same on the portal, and realized that he had assessment proceeding for the financial year 2012-13 i.e. assessment year 2013-14. All the notices regarding assessment proceedings issued by the assessing officers were sent only by mail to my old consultants mail

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

penalty under Section 201 read with Section 221 of the I.T. Act. In addition, he would also be liable under Section 201(1A) to pay simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b)\nGround

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b) Ground

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by the Appellant and absence of any deliberate default. The Appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged