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

251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D 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

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

251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D 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

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

251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D 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

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

251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D 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

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

251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D 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

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

251 ITR 99 (SC)/[200t] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(B) of the section

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the business premises of the assessee. Excess stock was discovered. An addition was made to the income of the assessee. Penalty was also imposed. The Tribunal upheld the order of penalty. On appeal to High Court: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal categorically held that the addition had not been

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

2 under the head 'sales under section 5’ i.e. exempted category which includes milk the figure of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Rs.1,30,57,613/- is mentioned. Raw milk is included in the class of products sold. vi. Invalidity of notices issued u/s,271(1}(c):- It was contended that the facts u/s.274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

2 under the head 'sales under section 5’ i.e. exempted category which includes milk the figure of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Rs.1,30,57,613/- is mentioned. Raw milk is included in the class of products sold. vi. Invalidity of notices issued u/s,271(1}(c):- It was contended that the facts u/s.274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by ignoring the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the CIT Vs Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(all), which is relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by ignoring the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the CIT Vs Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(all), which is relevant

CENZAR INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

2. The assessee filed a petition for admission of additional ground o 14-11- 2017 challenging the validity of penalty proceedings on the ground that penalty 3 ITA 1970/Mum/2015 order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio as the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to P a g e | 28 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

251 ITR 9, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is cancelled.” 9. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the order of Kolkata High Court in the case of Tata Metaliks, 268 ITR 643 in support of the proposition that intimation u/s.143(1) is not an assessment so as to disentitle the assessee to file revised return. Reliance

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

251 ITR 9, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is cancelled.” 9. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the order of Kolkata High Court in the case of Tata Metaliks, 268 ITR 643 in support of the proposition that intimation u/s.143(1) is not an assessment so as to disentitle the assessee to file revised return. Reliance