PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

penalty order dated 30.03.2013 in appeal no. DCIT 13(1)/271(1)(c)/PCJ/12-13 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act for AY 2008-09. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6002/Mum/2017 for AY 2008-09 which is against quantum assessment

PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

penalty order dated 30.03.2013 in appeal no. DCIT 13(1)/271(1)(c)/PCJ/12-13 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act for AY 2008-09. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6002/Mum/2017 for AY 2008-09 which is against quantum assessment

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

section 194C. The assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C, on the said payment. Hence the expenditure of Rs .75,00,000/-is hereby disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty u/s

UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharm/S United Freight Carriers, B-11, Archana Juhu, Versova Link Road, ……………. Appellant Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan – Aaafu1384K V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 20(3), Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, ……………. Respondent Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai - 400012

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the basis of following two additions:- 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 5,17,328/- 2. Disallowance of commission payment Rs. 2,95,865/- 6 United Freight Carriers 8. As regards disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, undisputedly the assessee has claimed the aforesaid

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKITA REALITY AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the law especially since he has grossly erred in not being specific with regards to the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings.” 5. We will first deal with the revenue appeal wherein the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the addition on merits

ACIT 25 (3), MUMBAI vs. PRAVIN VIRAM SATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) Brokerage 258073 229685 28388 Sub-contractor (Labour) 11243613 6426632 4816981 Legal & Professional Fees 2264874 2148159 116715 Testing & Surveying Charges 1117476 117476 1000000 Consultancy Charges 2964463 1994890 969573 17848499 10916842 6931657 2.2. The ld AO proceeded to disallow the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 69,31,657/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2.3. We find that

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

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

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, is being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the taxable income.” 38. The Ld. CIT(A) treated the said addition as subsumed in the addition for net profit sustained by him. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4.6 So far as sixth ground

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, is being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the taxable income.” 38. The Ld. CIT(A) treated the said addition as subsumed in the addition for net profit sustained by him. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4.6 So far as sixth ground

ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VADILAL MILK PRODUCTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito 8(3)(4) Vadilal Milk Products. R.No.202, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Ltd.(Vmpl Dairy Ltd.) Gul Aayakar Bhavan,, Manzil, 1St Floor, 14, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dashratlal Joshi Rdm Vile Parle(W) Mumbai-400056 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacv5103G Revenue By Shri Arvind Kumar (Dr) Respondent By Shri Piyush Chaturvedi (Ar)

194C, the AO disallowed the same by invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) were initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of 8 Vadilal Milk Products. income by claiming expenses which are not allowable as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) under the I.T Act. In course appellate

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1 }(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(3), the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) who observed that tribunal in assessee’s own case from

SUREMI TRADING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rushi Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6684/Mum/2012 dated 4.3.2015) and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with following observations :- "4. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 37(1). The above submissions of the assessee and the documents filed in this regard have been duly considered. As per the Schedule - 20 related to the "Statement of Significant Accounting Policies", the basis and the method of accounting regarding Asset Restoration Cost is given, which is reproduced as below: "4 Fixed Assets, Depreciation and Amortization. (a) Asset restoration

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

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

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

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

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

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

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

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

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