ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and even though the assessee withdrew the claim by filing the revised return and offered for taxation the profit from Blue Meadow project Rs 23,32,39,561/-, the AO completed the scrutiny assessment based on the original return of income and disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IB (10

SHREECHAND BUILDERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

801B(10) at Rs.51,40,622/-. It is further seen that you have computed book profit u/s.115JB at Rs. NIL, therefore, no tax liability thereon has not been determined. It is further seen that in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.10 deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) has been disallowed however, no discussion has taken place in respect

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 26. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the year under consideration has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB of the Act on two grounds. Firstly, the plan was approved for first time in the year 1993, and therefore

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 26. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the year under consideration has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB of the Act on two grounds. Firstly, the plan was approved for first time in the year 1993, and therefore

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

801B(10) is worked out at Rs.19,l12,692/- on proration basis as referred above." 3.10 On this basis, it has been claimed that full disclosure of facts was made regarding combined units and only proportionate deduction of claim u/s.80IB(10) was claimed in respect of only those units having built up area upto 1000 sq.ft. and therefore, full disclosure

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied and hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty. This appeal of revenue is dismissed. Page 17 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) 21. The only issue in ITA No. 2954/Mum/2012

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied and hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty. This appeal of revenue is dismissed. Page 17 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) 21. The only issue in ITA No. 2954/Mum/2012

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied and hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty. This appeal of revenue is dismissed. Page 17 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) 21. The only issue in ITA No. 2954/Mum/2012

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

10(3)(2) 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the CIT(A) to that extent be reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND II: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the A.O on account of disallowance made by restricting the claim u/s 801B

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

10(3)(2) 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the CIT(A) to that extent be reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND II: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the A.O on account of disallowance made by restricting the claim u/s 801B

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the notice initiating penalty is ambiguous in the absence of clear mention of the limb under which penalty is 3 M/s. Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited initiated, the notice is therefore invalid, and the penalty is unsustainable hence the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped

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

MORESHWAR KRUSHNA BARIA,VIRAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B(10) has been claimed in respect of income offered to tax for projects entitled for such deduction." 7.6 The submission of the assessee was carefully considered vis a vis the details available on record. It is seen these loose paper bundles evidence that the assessee is accepting cash as 'on money' over and above the sale agreement value

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this