ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and needs to be deleted.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that vide order, dated 24/02/2024, penalty of INR.54,51,888/-was levied on the Assessee under Section 271

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c))\nACIT, CC-38, Room no.\nVs.\nM/s. United Phosphorous Ltd.\n32(1), Ayakar Bhavan,\nUniphos House, Madhu Park,\nMaharishi Karve Rd.,\n11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai.\nMumbai-400020.\nPAN: AAACU 3440 P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nMs. Vasanti Patel Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18/03/2025\nDate

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”\n3.\nIn Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the Transfer Pricing\n(TP) adjustment on account of payment of Royalty to Inventio AG. In this\nregard, during the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee\nand the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) have entered into

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

penalty to the date on which the refund is granted. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF or section 115WG or sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

penalty to the date on which the refund is\ngranted.\n(3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of\nsection 115WE or section 115WF or section 115WG or sub-\nsection (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or\nsection 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or\nsection

SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”\n3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the Transfer Pricing\n(TP) adjustment on account of payment of Royalty to Inventio AG. In this\nregard, during the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee\nand the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) have entered into

DCIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDL.L TD), MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), that is, limb concealments of particulars of income\nand limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are stated in\nthe notice without striking off one of them.\n\n11. 1. The issue raised by the ld. Counsel on the validity of the notice so\nissued and proceedings undertaken thereafter, resulting in imposition\nof penalty

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), that is, limb concealments of particulars of income\nand limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are stated in\nthe notice without striking off one of them.\n\n11. 1. The issue raised by the ld. Counsel on the validity of the notice so\nissued and proceedings undertaken thereafter, resulting in imposition\nof penalty

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), that is, limb concealments of particulars of income and limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are stated in the notice without striking off one of them.\n11. 1. The issue raised by the ld. Counsel on the validity of the notice so issued and proceedings undertaken thereafter, resulting in imposition of penalty on the assessee

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), that is, limb concealments of particulars of income\nand limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are stated in\nthe notice without striking off one of them.\n11. 1. The issue raised by the ld. Counsel on the validity of the notice so\nissued and proceedings undertaken thereafter, resulting in imposition\nof penalty on the assessee

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

section 271(1)(c), that is, limb concealments of particulars of income\nand limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are stated in\nthe notice without striking off one of them.\n\n11. 1. The issue raised by the ld. Counsel on the validity of the notice so\nissued and proceedings undertaken thereafter, resulting in imposition\nof penalty

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

va for future years or terminal value was disclosed by the valuer, lue was disclosed by the valuer, secondly, no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital expenditure in future cash flow has been given, thirdly thirdly, discount expenditure in future cash flow

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

va for future years or terminal value was disclosed by the valuer, lue was disclosed by the valuer, secondly, no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital expenditure in future cash flow has been given, thirdly thirdly, discount expenditure in future cash flow

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

va for future years or terminal value was disclosed by the valuer, lue was disclosed by the valuer, secondly, no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital expenditure in future cash flow has been given, thirdly thirdly, discount expenditure in future cash flow

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

va for future years or terminal value was disclosed by the valuer, lue was disclosed by the valuer, secondly, no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital , no deduction on account of investment in capital expenditure in future cash flow has been given, thirdly thirdly, discount expenditure in future cash flow