ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. l have gone through the facts of the case, assessment order, penalty order and the contentions of the appellant. 5.1.2 In the instant case I find that the issue on which the additionshad been made by the A.O. in his order under section 143(3) of the Act, formed part of the appellant

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

271(1)(c). Thus levy of penalty on the disallowances made by virture of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained. Accordingly we hold that penalty levied on such disallowances should be deleted. 10. Lastly, with regard to disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 35D

ASST CIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INFINITE COMPUTER SOLUTIONS (I) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

35D towards IPO expenses on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. According to the AO, making a wrong claim in the return of income tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)2 (RESTRUCTURED DESIGNATION CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

35D is clearly debatable issue. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in respect to debatable claim made in return of income. Reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Nayan Builders & Developer 231 Taxman 665 (Bom.) A.O. has levied penalty by invoking Explanation 1 to section

ARIES AGRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 9. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The assessee prays for leave to add, alter or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing. 3. The brief facts

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

35D of the Act, respectively. The Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice dated 28.03.2016 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for the following limb/charges:  Has concealed the particulars

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the Legislature. 9.5 Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) (322 ITR 158) and the fact that similar disallowance u/s 35D

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the Legislature. 9.5 Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) (322 ITR 158) and the fact that similar disallowance u/s 35D

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the Legislature. 9.5 Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) (322 ITR 158) and the fact that similar disallowance u/s 35D

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

35D(3) - Explanation (g)"Tenancy" - section 1941 Explanation (i) -lease, sub-lease, tenancy (h)"Lease" Section 269UA(t) Section 44AE Section 696A(a)(1)(iii) (i)Section 54D, 54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where

M/S. ASHOK ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-27, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 1996-97 M/S Kumatka Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Formerly Known As M/S Ashok Special Range-27, बनाम/ Organic Industries Ltd.) Room No.535, Vs. 5Th Floor, Ramkrishna Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers, Bpc Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Alkapuri, Vadoara Mumbai-400020 Gujarat-390007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca3371M

section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In so far as disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs.17,80,470, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty levied by the AO on the ground that even though the law is very clear in respect of deductibility of expenses u/s 35D

DCIT,CC -3(4),CR-3, MUMBAI vs. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 35D, 20% of total expenses i.e. Rs 83,14,300/- are allowable during the year as against the claim of Rs 1,10,85,733/-. The difference of Rs 27,71,455/- was thus disallowed and it is on this amount the penalty u/s 271

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S Bnp Paribas Securities India Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 8Th Floor, 1 North Avenue, Maker Mumbai-400020. Maxity Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)- Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcb 4690 F Appellant Respondent

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and levy of interest u/s 234B/244A consequent to the above levy of interest u/s 234B/244A consequent to the above levy of interest u/s 234B/244A consequent to the above additions. Since the additions additions. Since the additions are deleted, as a consequence the above are deleted, as a consequence the above grounds are treated