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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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 ()

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

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

section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271

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

56,660/-(i.e. total\nincome varied as compared to income declared in original return of\nincome filed on 28/11/2014) .\n4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the\nAct, the Assessing Officer observed discrepancies/variation in the\nprofit and loss account and balance sheet filed with the return\nunder section 153A vis-à-vis the original return. Notably, variations

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

56,660/-(i.e. total\nincome varied as compared to income declared in original return of\nincome filed on 28/11/2014) .\n4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the\nAct, the Assessing Officer observed discrepancies/variation in the\nprofit and loss account and balance sheet filed with the return\nunder section 153A vis-à-vis the original return. Notably, variations

MOHD. IMTIYAZ FAQIR MOHD SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 23(2)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh, Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 100, Blue Flame Apartment, 40 S V Room No. 115, 1St Floor, Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Agpps 6863 A Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions as under : 1. Short Term Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain

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

56,660/-(i.e. total\nincome varied as compared to income declared in original return of\nincome filed on 28/11/2014) .\n4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the\nAct, the Assessing Officer observed discrepancies/variation in the\nprofit and loss account and balance sheet filed with the return\nunder section 153A vis-à-vis the original return. Notably, variations

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income.”\n\n16\n\n6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of the claim of the\nassessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that\nit had paid entire consideration of Rs.75 crores to CCL as advance\non 09.03.2001 for acquiring 20.70% equity

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income.\"\n6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of the claim of the\nassessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that\nit had paid entire consideration of Rs.75 crores to CCL as advance\non 09.03.2001 for acquiring 20.70% equity shares

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income.”\n6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of the claim of the\nassessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that\nit had paid entire consideration of Rs.75 crores to CCL as advance\non 09.03.2001 for acquiring 20.70% equity shares

MRS. RUCHITA JINDAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition in AY 2015-16 instead of AY 2014-15. P a g e | 2 Mrs.Ruchita Jindal Vs. DCIT, CC 3(3) 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement