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-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

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

35D of the Act in this year. 30. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. P a g e | 20 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj

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

35D of the Act in this year. 30. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. P a g e | 20 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj

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

35D of the Act in this year. 30. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. P a g e | 20 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj

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

35D of the Act in this year. 30. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. P a g e | 20 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj

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

35D of the Act in this year. 30. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. P a g e | 20 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

35D to the amount of Rs.4,56,959/- as per the assessment order passed by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs.2,90,26,451/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. With the assistance of ld. Representative we have gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2011, the relevant operating part

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

35D to the amount of Rs.4,56,959/- as per the assessment order passed by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs.2,90,26,451/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. With the assistance of ld. Representative we have gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2011, the relevant operating part

I.G.INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.123/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2015-16) I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. 802, 8Th Floor, Akshar Bluechip Building, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan: Aacci-2508-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit – Central Circle – 1(3), 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/ Shri Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 2 2. Shri Ashok Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the notice dated 31/05/2018 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective, as both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned therein

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271\n9.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of\nIncome-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction in\nrespect of DEPB as per the third proviso to section 80HHC(3)(c) of the Act.\n10.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalties which was confirmed by the CIT(A). During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, under instruction, stated that the Assessee does not wish to press this ground. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 2 5. Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to allowability

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 13:0 Re: Rectification of mistakes apparent on record; 13:1 The Assessing Officer has made certain mistakes apparent on record particularly with regard to the computation of total income and tax thereon. 13:2 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to rectify

STRIDES SHASUN LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

section in chapter X of the act. Only if there is income which is chargeable to tax under the normal provisions of the act, then alone Chapter X of the act could be invoked. Further, since there is no income arising from the transaction of issue of shares, the provisions of chapter X would not apply. The Hon'ble Bombay

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

penalty charges to be capital receipt. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has not been controverted by the Revenue, hence, following the same we uphold the findings of CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.2 in the appeal by Revenue." 12. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y.1996-97