DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

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

50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow carry forward of capital loss of ₹3,39,60,946/- to the assessee. 016. In the result

GUNWANT SOHANLAL KHERODIYA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kalyan Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya Plot No.30, Office No.101, 504, A3, Vs. Jeevandeep Apartment, Swami Devprakash Garden, Sai Section Ambernath-421501 Opp Sibu Palace, Ambarnath, Thane 421501 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agepk2846E

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya; A.Y. 14-15 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and levying the Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, without

NITIN GOPINATH BHOIR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

penalty u/s 271(1) (c).\n11. The contention of the appellant that the AO has made addition on estimated\nbasis by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

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

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

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

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAWANISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA SHARMA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,08,76,000/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to adhere to the provisions of section 50C

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same\n assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely\nconsequential and arise directly out of the additions made in\nthe quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard\ntogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.\n2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.\n4975/Mum/2025

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

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the same assessment year. Since the penalty proceedings are purely consequential and arise directly out of the additions made in the quantum assessment, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No. 4975/Mum/2025. In this

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal

EMERGING MULTITADE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. WARD 6(2)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emerging Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward 6(2)(4), 396, Kamat Industrial Estate, Veer Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Road, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 2366 C Appellant Respondent

50C which is contrary to rules of reasonableness in approach and betr to rules of reasonableness in approach and betrays a prejudiced ays a prejudiced mind. amounting to Rs. 299010/ mind. amounting to Rs. 299010/- Ground7-All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice All of the above

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 8. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 8.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such

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

SHAMOON AHMED MULLA,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so imposed in the first appeal by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Thrust of assessee in his appeal is that it has been imposed on income which has been added under the head ‘Income from other sources’ under a deeming provision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is initiated separately for the concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” 16. For better understanding and analysis of the issue we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 43CA as under: “[Special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than