SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

section 71(2A) of the IT Act. Hon’ble ITAT is requested to reverse the order of CIT (A) NFAC on this account and allow the ground.” 6.“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate the facts to uphold the initiating proceedings through issuing penalty notice u/s 271

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of ITA Nos. 6267 to 6269/Mum/2018 & CO Nos. 243 to 245/Mum/2019 depreciation on steel purchase even though the AO, in assessment order, held

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 of Revenue’s appeal

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

e | 5 ITA No.2647/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Elenjickamalil V. Thomas v. DCIT-22(3), Mumbai penalty orders dated 12.03.2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee in the first appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

e) ITO v. Parikh Investment & Development P. Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 537 Mumbai I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 f) Equest India P. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 136 TTJ (Mumbai) g) Yogesh R. Desai v CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 101 h) Glorious Realty P. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2009) 29 SOT 292 (i) Suren Arvindbhai v. Income

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

22,797/- and other day to day expenses in the profit and loss account. This has been disallowed by the AO on the ground that the expenditure could be claimed only in the year of completion. The disallowance had been accepted by the assessee. However the AO had also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) @ 200% of tax sought

P. JAMES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such deeming fiction provided u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We further observe that the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Sadhna Bros vs ACIT (2011) 46 SOT 1 (Ind)(URO) held that penalty u/s 271

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.02.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 1997-98, 1999-2000 & 2004-05 which have been arisen out of the order passed by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.02.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 1997-98, 1999-2000 & 2004-05 which have been arisen out of the order passed by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.02.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 1997-98, 1999-2000 & 2004-05 which have been arisen out of the order passed by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 09.09.2015 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Both the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed off on the facts for A.Y. 2002-03 2. In all the assessment years the Revenue