ITO WD 11(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. SALIENT TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee for A

Penalty proceedings u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, are initiated on this issue. 3.7. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the observation made in the assessment order in last para at page 3 and first para at page 4 is factually incorrect as the ld. AO had mixed both the issues i.e. payment

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

BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbalaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited, 6Th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaacb8155C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-2(1) (1), R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of disallowances/additions made thereon and reasons assigned by him are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. The Appellant Craves leave to add, Amend, alter, Modify and/or delete

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

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

penalty charges to be capital receipt. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has not been controverted by the Revenue, hence, following the same we uphold the findings of CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.2 in the appeal by Revenue." 12. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y.1996-97

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

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

u/s 43(1) of the Act.\n\n3. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and\nwithout prejudice to Grounds 3.1 and 3.2, the learned DRP/AO\nhave erred in not allowing deduction for ARC as a revenue\nexpense u/s 37(1) of the Act.\n\n3. 4. On the facts