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

section 271(1)(c). The appellant pray that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on depreciation of Rs.1,59,80,750/- should be deleted. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter ground or add new grounds.” 3.1.2 Vide letter dated 12.07.2016, the assessee has filed the following additional grounds: - Additional grounds of appeal “1. On the facts

ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAM HASMUKHBHAI JAGDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

Section 271 and putting the responsibility on the assessee, it is necessary for the A.O. to first demonstrate that the explanation of the assessee or the conduct of the assessee was not reasonable on human probabilities, or that it was in the nature of violating settled legal positions. It cannot be said that, the explanations given by the respondent- assessee

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue." AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-.” 5.4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue." AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-.” 5.4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

DCIT,CC -3(4),CR-3, MUMBAI vs. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

801A and claim of deduction u/s 35 o Act based on the seized material unearthed during the course of search action" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of developing, operating, maintaining and constructing various infrastructure facilities such as roads, bridges, airport, etc. The assessee has filed

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1)Q, MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ASST CIT CC 43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

u/s 263 setting aside the Assessment Order without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Without prejudice to above ground, IV. 1. The CIT-(Central) erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing officer and directing him to reframe the assessment in accordance with

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 80HHC by invoking the provisions of Section 801B(13) r.w.s 801A(9). GROUND IV: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the AO under Section 271

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act. 5. The following grounds have been taken by Revenue for the A.Y.2010-11 1. "Whether on the facts ana in the circumstances of the .case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding the sales tax exemption benefits as capital receipts not liable to income tax without appreciating

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) 4. Aggrieved, by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed elaborated written submissions in respect of additions made by the AO towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) along with various supporting evidences including copies of agreement entered into

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) 4. Aggrieved, by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed elaborated written submissions in respect of additions made by the AO towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) along with various supporting evidences including copies of agreement entered into

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Century Textiles Room No. 502, 5Th & Industrials Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Century Mk Road, Bhavan, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jogendra Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Chaitanya D. Joshi.Ar Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

801A is Rs. 16,30,87,699/- as against Rs. 20,38,59,686/- (-) 20,38,91,911/- Rs.32,325/- claimed by the assessee company. Therefore, an addition of Rs.4,07,71,917/- (Rs. 20,38,59,686/- - Rs. 16,30,87,699) is made to the total income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Revenue Ground No. Issues 1 to 4 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 5 Disallowance u/s 40(a)9ia) on year end provisions 6 Deleting the addition on account of CENVAT Credit ignoring the fact that the addition was made on net-basis and assessee, itself, withdrew its ground before ITAT