ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c))\nACIT, CC-38, Room no.\nVs.\nM/s. United Phosphorous Ltd.\n32(1), Ayakar Bhavan,\nUniphos House, Madhu Park,\nMaharishi Karve Rd.,\n11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai.\nMumbai-400020.\nPAN: AAACU 3440 P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nMs. Vasanti Patel Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18/03/2025\nDate

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) has been deleted on all the issued, therefore, this Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Taxability on surplus on redemption of securities as Capital Gains Rs.1,94,19,926:- 70. Since the facts and the issue involved in this ground of appeal is similar to the facts

GAUTAM TEJRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

penalty of Rs. 5,55,197/- being hundred percent of the tax determined on addition of Rs. 24,19,413/- made on the basis of profit estimated @ 12.5% of the impugned bogus purchases. In the case of the assessee, it is clear from the copy of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act filed in the paper book that

GAUTAM TEJRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

penalty of Rs. 5,55,197/- being hundred percent of the tax determined on addition of Rs. 24,19,413/- made on the basis of profit estimated @ 12.5% of the impugned bogus purchases. In the case of the assessee, it is clear from the copy of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act filed in the paper book that

ACE ELECTROMAGNETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO,WD 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 271(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without striking off the irrelevant limb, i.e., whether the penalty levied is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the same is bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in conforming the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

197(1) of the Act authorizing non-deduction of TDS from payments to Kone, copies of which were submitted by the Appellant to the DRP and the AO. 2.2.2. The learned AO erred on facts and in law in disallowing the payment made to Kone without giving any opportunity to the Appellant to explain the position. 2.3. Further, the learned

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act be dropped. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of the Ld. AO in the levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident. She did not file her return of income

ASIF HUSSAIN SHAH SAYAD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

u/s 270A dated 28.07.2023 and have levied penalty of Rs.8,06,343/-. Requesting Your Honour, to delete the additions made to the Total income of the 2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO under s. 270A of the Act is bad-in-law and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT(OSDII), CR-7 (NOW DCIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

u/s. 37 of the Income tax Act 1961. During the course of Assessments we have provide detail of expenses like Rent expenses along with amount of TDS deducted, Legal and professional charges, security charges, Travelling & conveyance, Staff welfare, Rates and Taxes, Salary & wages, creditors list along with address. We have a staff of around 1000 on our pay roll