GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. b) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of additional income of INR 1,95,86,904 which has been suo moto offered to tax. c) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of 2 taxability of soft

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThe AO levied penalty Rs.47,74,794/- in respect of the disallowance of\nRs.38,30,978/-on account of Foreign Exchange Loss and in respect of\nthe addition of Rs.1,72,92,564/- on account of alleged undervaluation of\nstock.It is noticed that penalty was levied on account of certain\ndisallowances made

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 30,65,075/-. 17. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 03.12.2024, upheld the penalty levied by the ld. AO. 18. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order

CHOUDHARY CONSTRUCTION CO.,GOREGAON -W vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 31(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

259 (Del), wherein it was held as under: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income Assessment year 2003-04 - Whether for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 of the Act\nso as to categorically give a finding that the assessee was either defaulter\nfor concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars thereof. In\nthe subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty.\n4. Before us,the ld. DR has contended that the issue of striking\noff of one of the limbs in the show

HARESH GHANSHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

259 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court has expounded that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can only be levied if in the course of proceedings, the A.O. is satisfied that there is an concealment or furnishing of 7 ITA Nos. 2904 & 2906/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs. ITO inaccurate particulars. The words ''in the course of any proceedings

HARESH GHASHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

259 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court has expounded that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can only be levied if in the course of proceedings, the A.O. is satisfied that there is an concealment or furnishing of 7 ITA Nos. 2904 & 2906/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs. ITO inaccurate particulars. The words ''in the course of any proceedings

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

section 144C of the Act. Since, the draft assessment order has been passed without complying with the relevant provision of the Act read with the Rules, the Appellant wishes to challenge the same by way of additional ground in view of decision passed by the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s Surtex Prophylactics (India

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition of Rs.8,59,31,291/- pertaining to upward adjustment to the arm’s length price as recommended by the TPO. The P a g e | 4 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition of Rs.8,59,31,291/- pertaining to upward adjustment to the arm’s length price as recommended by the TPO. The P a g e | 4 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANDRA RECLAMATION vs. DCIT (EXEM) - 2, MUMBAI, PEDDER ROAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

259/- in respect of claim of depreciation which was voluntarily withdrawn by the Appellant. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of notice us 274 r.ws 271(1)(c) wherein no specific charge of either tiling of inaccurate particulars or concealment

MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

259/- credited to 'Claim from\nVodafone Account' and net balance of\n2,28,106/- credited to Profit and Loss\nAccount. Income offered to tax. Income\nshort credited to the extent of TDS of 2,014.\nCredit of TDS of 2,014 be granted\n\n3\n1941 - Rent\n2,53,000\n25,300\n2,27,700\n\nData punching error - accepted

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1)(c). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said imposition of penalty against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that contention was raised before the ld. CIT(A) that there was no tax payable on the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 and the addition made

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961.\nB. The CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the revised\nreturned income was accepted offering the additional income to tax without the\nIncome Tax Officer finding out any cogent material.\nC. Your appellant prays that the penalty levied may please be deleted