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

MARVEL DRUGS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO-6(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of other disallowances disregarding that it did not involve any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2 M/s. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the contention of the appellant challenging the validity of the penalty order in as much as the assessment as well as penalty

SHREE YADVESH TRANSPORT CO . PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

195/- in the hands of the assessee. Against the assessment order the assessee did not file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. AO subsequently issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.271 of the Act on 27.11.2018 for filing inaccurate particular of income. A show cause notice u/s 271(1)(C) dated 05.04.2019 was issued

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

u/s 40(a) in earlier assessment years. However, on verification it was found that the assessee had added back interest amount of Rs. 2,78,83,738/- only during the earlier assessment years. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1,76,88,923/- (4,55,72,663-2,78,83,738) was made to total income under the normal provisions

SULZER PUMPS INDIA P. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL./JT/DY/ ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

271,088 Total 3,830,510 B.41. On account of the submissions in the foregoing paragraphs, it is submitted that the Ld. TPO and consequently DRP has erred in holding the ALP of the transaction under consideration at Nil.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 14. Considered the rival submissions

RITA HEMCHAND GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE INT TAX WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs. 1,52,084/– has been imposed upon the appellant assessee vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed by assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. The brief facts related to the appeal state that the appellant is a non resident Indian, settled in Dubai, UAE since the year 1978. During the assessment year A.Y.2014

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 is bad\nin law if sanction

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

195 (SC)].\n11. Further, recently, in almost identical facts and circumstances as in the present\ncase, this Court in the case of Prabhakar Nerulkar Vs. PCIT, Panaji, Goa (Writ\nPetition No.443 of 2024 Goa Bench decided on 21.07.2025), held that the\nreopening notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 is bad\nin law if sanction

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

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails