DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

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

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

Section 282A, even in\nthe absence of a physical or digital signature. Given\nthat the Hon'ble ITAT is bound by the rulingsof its\nown jurisdictional High Court,and in light of the\nprinciple laid down in CIT v. Smt. Godavari devi Saraf\nSupra Note 6, the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad\nHighCourtin Vikas Gupta Supra Note 1 cannot

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Revenue Ground No. Issues 1 to 4 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 5 Disallowance u/s 40(a)9ia) on year end provisions 6 Deleting the addition on account of CENVAT Credit ignoring the fact that the addition was made on net-basis and assessee, itself, withdrew its ground before ITAT

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Revenue Ground No. Issues 1 to 4 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 5 Disallowance u/s 40(a)9ia) on year end provisions 6 Deleting the addition on account of CENVAT Credit ignoring the fact that the addition was made on net-basis and assessee, itself, withdrew its ground before ITAT

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

282 ITR 273, the Apex Court held that though the principle of Res-judicata would not apply to tax matters as cause of action for each assessment year is different / distinct, yet in case there is no change in the factual position or the law, the views expressed in one year are binding for the subsequent years. This

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal: - 1

MRS SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal: - 1

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal: - 1

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal: - 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI, VIRAR EAST

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal: - 1

RAVINDRA WALIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

282/- on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has upheld the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal

RAVINDRA WALIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

282/- on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has upheld the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal