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

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The words 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' in section 271 (1) are prefaced by the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). When a survey is conducted by a survey team, the question of satisfaction of Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner does

GTL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 203/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1864/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14) स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 121/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.588/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2013-14)

269/- on 10.11.2014. Scrutiny assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 01.09.2014 and consequently assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 92 CA (3) of the Act dated 27.12.2016, wherein the AO made disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MARKSANS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

u/s 271(1)(c) on aforesaid disallowances are cancelled and the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The ground no. 2 as raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. Since we have already deleted the penalty on merits, the legal issue as raised in ground no. 1 is not being adjudicated as the same has become purely academic

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c). In this regard, reliance is. placed on various. judgments including Roborant Investment 7. SOT 181 (Mum), Caplln Point Laboratories Ltd 212 CTR 58, Regency Express Builders P Ltd 166 Taxman 269 and Bhartesh Jain 137 TTJ 200 (Del). 3.16 It is a judicially well-established principle that no penalty under Section

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

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

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

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

269(Bom.) and held that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions of 271AAA of the Act for the immunity from penalty and therefore the sum of Rs. ITA 5813/Mum/2013 & 32 23,27,15,980/- declared as undisclosed income in the return of income u/s 153A of the Act is liable for penalty due to contravention of section 271AAA

DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI vs. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

269(Bom.) and held that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions of 271AAA of the Act for the immunity from penalty and therefore the sum of Rs. ITA 5813/Mum/2013 & 32 23,27,15,980/- declared as undisclosed income in the return of income u/s 153A of the Act is liable for penalty due to contravention of section 271AAA

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

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

penalty notice dated 21 December 2016 u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order thereby Aker Powergas P. Ltd; A.Y. 2013–14 not following the procedures laid down u/s 144C of the act. iii. The appellant submits that the draft assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C

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

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

271 D of the Act. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the impugned penalty is not leviable and that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the same. 3. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the levy

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

271 D of the Act. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the impugned penalty is not leviable and that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the same. 3. The CIT(A) erred in enhancing the levy

PRAVIN PHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Pravin Pharma Income Tax Officer-23(3)(1) 244/245, Govind Udyog Mumbai Bhavan, Bal Rajeshwar Road Vs. Model Town, Mulund (W) Mumbai 400080 Pan – Aaafp6446K Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 as under: - “4.1 During appellate proceedings, li is seen that despite specifically being asked to file written submission on merits, as appeal against penalty cannot be kept ill indefinitely only because the assessee has preferred second appeal before the ITAT, absolutely nothing has been submitted from the side