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

viii) Further, in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme\nCourt) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:\n\"It is the statutory duty of the assessee to declare its true\nincome in the return of income filed by it from year to year and\nif the assessee had concealed true particulars of income than\nthe

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

viii) Further, in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme\nCourt) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:\n\"It is the statutory duty of the assessee to declare its true\nincome in the return of income filed by it from year to year and\nif the assessee had concealed true particulars of income than\nthe

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

viii) The judgements relied upon by the assessee are not\nrelevant to the prese case as the facts are different.\n9.2 Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty @ 50%\namounting to Rs.34,24,309/- for under reporting income to the\nextent of Rs.1,92,72,880/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)\ndeleted the penalty in respect of disallowance

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was also initiated. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order ITBA/NFAC /S/250/2023-24/1053796425(1) Dated 19/06/2023 has decided as under:- “Decision on Ground

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

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) 2006-07 \n\n2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the \nabove table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. \n143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- \n03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

viii. She also raised additional issue that learned Assessing Officer challenges penalty orders, but they are below the requisite monetary limit and therefore, as per CBDT Circular 2/18 dated 7thNovember 2018, amended further on 20thAugust 2018, these are low tax effect penalty appeals which could not have been preferred by the learned Assessing Officer. For this proposition, she also relied