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

194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on amount of Rs.49,91,60,329/-, by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961, is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ASST (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, with aforesaid directions both the appeals filed by

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

271 C of the ITA could not be imposed against the Appellant. 7. The Assessinq Officer failed to appreciate that there was no judicial precedent directly on the applicability of payments made to the hospital by third party administrators its determination was at a "nascent' stage and therefore the penal provisions of section 271C of the IT Act could

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

194J. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has tried to demonstrate before us that the relevant facts involved in the present case are similar to the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that this stand of the assessee requires verification since this aspect of the matter has come up for consideration for the first

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

194J. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has tried to demonstrate before us that the relevant facts involved in the present case are similar to the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that this stand of the assessee requires verification since this aspect of the matter has come up for consideration for the first

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

194J. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has tried to demonstrate before us that the relevant facts involved in the present case are similar to the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that this stand of the assessee requires verification since this aspect of the matter has come up for consideration for the first

MOHAMMED SALIM YUSUF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Sh. Mahavir Singh,Jm & B.R. Baskaran,Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No./7208/Mum/2012,िन िन िनधा"रण िन धा"रण धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 वष" Mohammed Salim Yusuf Dcit-15(3) Flat No.14, 1St Floor, Isak Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan:Aakpy 9942 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: None Assessee By: S. Ravichandran-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:30.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S 254(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(The Act) O R D E R "याियक सद"य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-26, In Appeal No.Cit(A)-26/It-17/Dcit.15(3)/2010-11 Order Dated 04.09.2012. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit-Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Vide His Order Dated 10.12.2009. The Penalty Under Dispute Was Levied By Dcit, Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 20.05.2010. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Addition Of Cash Credits & Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1.The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C ) For Disallowance Of Cash Credit Of Rs.2,86,500/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty For Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs.75,000/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same.”

194J of the Act and thereby disallowance was made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO on both the counts initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

FATHIMA HOSPITAL P LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT (A)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7867/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, under the circumstance, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of both the parties and on careful perusal of the records, it came to notice that the assesee’s claim for expenditure on account of professional fees paid

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

SCHIL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1777/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1669/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit-4(2)(1), M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Army & Navy Bldg., 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5004/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs 5661H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assesee By: Shri F.V. Irani Shri Z. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 194J, the provisions of Sec. 40A(2) have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA No. 5004/M/2015 – Assesee’s appeal 13. Since the disallowance of sub-brokerage in quantum appeal is deleted, question of levying penalty u/s. 271

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

ITO (OSD) (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE ESSAR LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

penalty proceedings, u/s 271(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed this ground being premature. 8. In respect of appeals filed by the assessee challenging the interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) restored the issues to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, since the issues relating to demand

VODAFONE INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR LTD.),MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. (OSD) (TDS) RG. 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

penalty proceedings, u/s 271(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed this ground being premature. 8. In respect of appeals filed by the assessee challenging the interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) restored the issues to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, since the issues relating to demand

ITO (TDS) 3 (4), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE ESSAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

penalty proceedings, u/s 271(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed this ground being premature. 8. In respect of appeals filed by the assessee challenging the interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) restored the issues to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, since the issues relating to demand

ITO (OSD) (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE ESSAR LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

penalty proceedings, u/s 271(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed this ground being premature. 8. In respect of appeals filed by the assessee challenging the interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) restored the issues to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, since the issues relating to demand

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

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