SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT 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

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 47(v). This can be at most can be described as human error and bonafide inadvertent error. Therefore, Penalty under 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for a "bonafide /inadvertent/ human error. Reliance in this regard is placed on: a) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The assessee filed a ROI together with the Tax Audit

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

40A(7) of the Act etc. Upon their sustenance by the Hon'ble Tribunal, proceedings u/s. 217(I)(c) of the Act were initiated and 6 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta consequent penalty levied by the Assessing Officer whose order was sustained in first appeal. In the second appeal preferred by the assessee, the Hon'ble Tribunal, however, deleted the levy

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) should not be initiated. III Notices u/s 133(6) for purchase verification issued the following parties but returned unserved by the postal department: M/s B K Enterprises; M/s Vijay Laxmi Traders; M/s Soni Brothers; M/s Shubh Trading Co; M/s Karnimata Emporium; M/s Ratan Enterprises; M/s Keshav Enterprises; M/s Sana Tradings and M/s Pawan Sheth

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) should not be initiated. III Notices u/s 133(6) for purchase verification issued the following parties but returned unserved by the postal department: M/s B K Enterprises; M/s Vijay Laxmi Traders; M/s Soni Brothers; M/s Shubh Trading Co; M/s Karnimata Emporium; M/s Ratan Enterprises; M/s Keshav Enterprises; M/s Sana Tradings and M/s Pawan Sheth

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

u/s 271(1)(c)-Assessee, by mistake claimed a deduction in respect of provision towards payment of gratuity in its return of income, even though Tax Audit Report Indicated that such provision was not allowable- AO initiated penalty on assessee for concealing income- Held, fact that Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated

GLOBAL PROSERV LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) made certain additions/disallowances as under : I Addition u/s 68 1,53,55,000 Ii Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 10,15,007 iii Disallwnce u/s 40A(2)(b) 25,45,459 iv Disllwance of deprecition 37,850 V Disllwnce u/s 40(a)(ia) 7,77,886 vi Disalwnce of travelling expenses 62,89,119 vii Disallwne

GLOBAL PROSERV LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) made certain additions/disallowances as under : I Addition u/s 68 1,53,55,000 Ii Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 10,15,007 iii Disallwnce u/s 40A(2)(b) 25,45,459 iv Disllwance of deprecition 37,850 V Disllwnce u/s 40(a)(ia) 7,77,886 vi Disalwnce of travelling expenses 62,89,119 vii Disallwne

GLOBAL PROSERV LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) made certain additions/disallowances as under : I Addition u/s 68 1,53,55,000 Ii Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 10,15,007 iii Disallwnce u/s 40A(2)(b) 25,45,459 iv Disllwance of deprecition 37,850 V Disllwnce u/s 40(a)(ia) 7,77,886 vi Disalwnce of travelling expenses 62,89,119 vii Disallwne

SUSHIL S. JHUNJHUNWALA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3001 To 3007/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2008-09) Shushil S. Jhujhunwala (Huf) Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) बिधम/ Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Meghna Apt, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajhs5267C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. On facts & Circumstances of the case & law on the subject the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.7466/- On facts & circumstances of the case & law on the subject the levied penalty be deleted. The appellant craves to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal.” The assessee

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of\nthe above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess\ndepreciation is also cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of\nthe assessee are allowed.\n8. The grounds in respect of assessment year 2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:\n1. On the facts and circumstances

VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

u/s 112(1) of the Income Tax Act. When there is no attempt on the part of the assessee to show the Long Term Capital Gain in a different category then merely because a concessional rate of tax was applied in the revised return does not ifso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars

NANDKISHOR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the AO against the assessee-firm for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee-firm submitted before the ITA 8644/Mum/2011 3 A.O. that there was no gross or willful neglect and there is no mens rea on the part of the assessee-firm

ASS CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WIRE AND WIRLESS TISAI SATELLITE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

u/s 40(a)(ia) and 40A(7) of the Act respectively indicate that the assessee has made a computation error in its return of income. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely for the reason that there is an addition to the returned income which attracts deeming provision of Explanation (1A) to section 271

SWADESH TEXTILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

40A(7) and was required to be added back, but it had not been added by the assessee, thereby leading to under assessment of income. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized the mistake and by a letter informed the AO that there was no wilful suppression of facts by the assessee