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

DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions, on the issue, which has been reproduced at Para ‘7’ on pages 3 to 13 of Ld.CIT

KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions, on the issue, which has been reproduced at Para ‘7’ on pages 3 to 13 of Ld.CIT

MUNIR M. KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO has initiated penalty proceedings, u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and issued a show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and called upon the assessee to explain, as to why penalty shall not be levied for concealment of particulars of Munir M.Khan income. In response, the assessee has filed detailed written

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

Section 271(1)(c) and the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) , vide penalty order dated 29-06-2010 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t. disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s 80IC, the assessee filed first appeal with

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

5. The assessee’s submission has been considered, but the same is not found acceptable. The assessee has not furnished any concrete evidence either during assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings, which establish that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the above income in his return of income. Merely because the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, he cannot

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in relation to the additions of `24,57,792/- and `6,31,682, being prior period expenses and disallowance of interest respectively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

43,050/- . When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has reduced the daily income from `50,000/- to `13,750/- in A.Y. 2002-03 and in the subsequent assessment year also and ultimately gave partial relief in each of the assessment year. When the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the Tribunal further deleted the additions

M/S FLEMMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DFS INDIA P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9 (3) (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Flemingo Travel Retail Dcit –9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Limited (Formerly Known As Dfs India Pvt. Ltd.), Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, International Airport, New Vs. Mumbai 400020 Terminal 2, Csi Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Pan – Aaccd7412N (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued by learned AO mechanically without specifying for which limb the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is sought to be initiated i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the finding of the AO that appellant has furnished inaccurate

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, as the appellant had paid the tax on deemed income under the provision of section 115JB of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied ought to be deleted.” 14. Our decision