INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKITA REALITY AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the law especially since he has grossly erred in not being specific with regards to the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings.” 5. We will first deal with the revenue appeal wherein the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the addition on merits

TAINWALA PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASS CIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

244A of the Act was not included in the total income due to oversight as the said amount was not reflected in the Form 26AS. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even though

STEELFAB BLDG SYSTEM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathasteelfab Building System Vs. Acit-31(3) 1St Floor, C-13 Building 101-A, Poonam Chambers B 7Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaxfs5995B (Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the penalty. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 Your Appellants further submits that the addition of Interest in the A.Y. 2012-13 and the same amount of Income has been offered in [he subsequent Year A.Y. 20I3-I4 amounts to double addition

AKER POWERGAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

244A only upto January 2017 even though the final assessment order was passed in October 2017. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against the appellant. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 02. At the time of hearing assessee moved

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

244A of the IT Act in the computation sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. Ground 5 - Penalty proceeding Penalty proceeding 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstan On 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 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

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

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

WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result of above discussion keeping in view the provisions of statute and Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2016, we accept the arguments of assessee, and ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalwest Cost Paper Mills Ltd., Shree Niwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Pan: Aaact4179N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(3) (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Alpesh Dharod & Sh. Tarun Ashok Chopda, Ars Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 244A(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.01.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] vide order dated 29.01.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA No. 305/Mum/2021-West Cost Paper Mills Ltd. “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SUNIL GAVASKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for Asst

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

Section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied and order passed by Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commr. of Income tax(Appeals) is bad in law. The appellant prays that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) may be deleted.” 2.”On the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned Commr. Of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

SUNIL GAVASKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for Asst

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

Section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied and order passed by Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commr. of Income tax(Appeals) is bad in law. The appellant prays that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) may be deleted.” 2.”On the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned Commr. Of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

SUNIL GAVASKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for Asst

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

Section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied and order passed by Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commr. of Income tax(Appeals) is bad in law. The appellant prays that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) may be deleted.” 2.”On the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned Commr. Of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

penalty to the date on which the refund is granted. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF or section 115WG or sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

MAHINDRA HOMES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG- 7 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

244A of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c). 11 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. 21. initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete such other objections before or during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate

PARTNERS MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC(EARLIER KNOWN AS PARTNERS HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5200 /Mum/2017 Partners Medical International, The Deputy Commissioner Of Inc, [Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Vs. Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) - Medical International, Inc.] 3(3)(2), Room No. 1603, C/O Pricewater House Coopers 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (P), Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Nariman Point, Guru Nanak Road, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050

244A of the Act. 9. Incorrect Levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO erred in proposing to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.2. The Appellant prays that the Learned AO be directed to not to levy

PARTNERS MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC(EARLIER KNOWN AS PARTNERS HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5200 /Mum/2017 Partners Medical International, The Deputy Commissioner Of Inc, [Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Vs. Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) - Medical International, Inc.] 3(3)(2), Room No. 1603, C/O Pricewater House Coopers 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (P), Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Nariman Point, Guru Nanak Road, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050

244A of the Act. 9. Incorrect Levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO erred in proposing to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.2. The Appellant prays that the Learned AO be directed to not to levy