MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The total income sought to be evaded is Rs.1.91,184/-. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c): Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.59,076/- Minimum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.1

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The total income sought to be evaded is Rs.1.91,184/-. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c): Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.59,076/- Minimum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs.1

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording as under: “6.3. The statement of the aforesaid HSBC Bank account during the assessment year 2002-03 shows the following transactions: xx xx From the aforesaid statement it is found that the interest of GBP 5234.47 was earned by the assessee in the joint bank account with father Shri Yashpal Jaswant

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It has been further held by the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has preferred an appeal against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on the quantum addition of Rs. 55 lakhs on account of deemed dividend u/s

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

264 is passed; Provided further that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 shall apply in respect of the order imposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under this sub-section] 2. The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply

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

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

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

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

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

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

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

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

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

section 145A of the Act. 46. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has made adjustment on account of modvat credit as per provision of Sec. 145A of the Act amounting to Rs.2,49,55,431/-. 47. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that corresponding opening stock should also be adjusted. He also referred the decision

KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

264/- u/s.115JB of the Act, was filed by the appellant for impugned assessment year. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on dated 02.12.2016. During the assessment proceeding the Ld.AO found that the assessee company had reduced Rs.4,55,72,663/- from the taxable income on the ground that aforesaid amount represent interest on debenture written

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.”\n2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: -\n“Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

271(1)(c)\nAY 2017-18\nu/s 271AAB\nAY 2018-19\nu/s 271AAB\n(Amt in INR)\nTotal\n4,08,99,387\n2,42,17,906\n6,51,17,293\nAddition made u/s 143(3)\n1 Corporate Guarantee commission\n@0.50%\n(ITAT-4,08,99,387/-) (ITAT-2,42,17,906/-)\n2 Provision for diminution in value of stock