GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

269/– was assessed at ₹ 141,821,938/– and transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 69,416,669/- was made. 013. Assessee preferred an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [ the Ld DRP] who passed direction on 05/9/2017 and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, on 27/10/2017, the learned assessing officer passed a final assessment order u/s 143 (3) read

MITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT - CC - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A) is when the CIT(A) himself has made a new addition or disallowance leading to enhancement in the corresponding quantum order This is not the case here. Thus the argument of the appellant that penalty u/s 271E cannot under any circumstances be enhanced by a CIT(A), is grossly fallacious

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

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

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

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

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

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SAINATH SAKHARAM TARE,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 DA of the Income\nTax Act for contravening the provisions of section 269 ST of the Income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section 269

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D\nfor violating the provisions of Section 269

SAINATH SAKHARAM TARE,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2019-20 Sainath Sakharam Tara Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Circle – 2, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 DA of the Income Tax Act for contravening the provisions of section 269 ST of the Income

SAINATH SAKHARAM TARE,THANE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Sainath Sakharam Tara Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Range, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 DA of the Income Tax Act for contravening the provisions of section 269 ST of the Income

SAINATH SAKHARAM TARE,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Sainath Sakharam Tara Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Circle – 2, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 DA of the Income Tax Act for contravening the provisions of section 269 ST of the Income

SAINATH SAKHARAM TARE,THANE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2019-20 Sainath Sakharam Tare Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Circle – 2, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.1,96,38,351/-u/s. 271 DA of the Act for contravention of provision of section 269 ST of the Act Sainath

SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

U/s 27ID without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same may be deleted. 4. That learned AO has erred in proponing the penalty Us 271 D of the Income Tax Act 1961 that assessee had accepted cash loans exceeding Rs 20000/- in contravention of the section 269

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal