SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and\nOthers Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007)\n295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as\nunder:\n\"...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read\nwith the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said\nsection has been enacted

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and\nOthers Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007)\n295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as\nunder:\n\"...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read\nwith the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said\nsection has been enacted

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

u/s. \n36(1)(viia) of the Act. \n\n29. This issue arises in the following appeals:\n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n2018-19 \n- \n2 \n2019-20 \n- \n2 \n2020-21 \n- \n2 \n\n29. 1. In respect of this issue, assessee in its books of account had made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

vii) has not been deducted from the total income before computing the deductions u/s. 36(1) (viia). 7. In response to that the assessee vide its reply filed on 07.03.2022 submitted as under: “As per the letter dated 16.07.2021, wherein you have intimated the reasons recorded it is seen that in the assessment order passed on 28.12.2018 the deduction u/s

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

36(i)(vii) or Section 28\nor 37(1) of the Act are applicable.\n\nIt is treated as Capital loss; hence bad debts of Rs. 74,90,00,000/- is\nnot allowable and therefore is added back to the total income of the\nassessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

36(i)(vii) or Section 28\nor 37(1) of the Act are applicable.\nIt is treated as Capital loss; hence bad debts of Rs. 74,90,00,000/- is\nnot allowable and therefore is added back to the total income of the\nassessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

36(i)(vii) or Section 28\nor 37(1) of the Act are applicable.\nIt is treated as Capital loss; hence bad debts of Rs. 74,90,00,000/- is\nnot allowable and therefore is added back to the total income of the\nassessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be considered as void ab initio. The same be held now. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming impugned penalty of Rs 55,34,03,602/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that on the facts of the case and in view

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI vs. KETAN ANIL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of taxable income.” leading to concealment of taxable income.” Ketan Anil Shah 7 5.1 The Ld.CIT(A), however

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

U/s. 271(1) (c) cannot be levied and assessee pleads that there is neither "Concealment' nor 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' by him. The assessee also relies on following decisions of various High Courts to put weight that he has not concealed the Income. Judicial Pronouncements: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh J. Deora

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 35DDA was a specific provision and the deduction was to be allowed in accordance with the provision of that section only. Pittied against the same is the argument of the Ld. AR that these three components were statutory payments and incorporated in the individual contracts of employment by virtue of which the employees were entitled to the said payment