PRABIR KUMAR RAY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhprabir Kumar Ray, Ito-26(2)(4) Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 601, Block No.C, Trans Residency-1, Midc, Smt. Kamladevi Mittal Andheri (E), Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Vs. Mumbai-400093. Charni Road (W), Pan: Aempr8166A Mumbai-4000202. Appellant Respondent : Shri Aman Khandelwal (C.A) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) does not go with concealment and should not be in penal nature. 1 ITA No. 5389 Mum 2017-Prabir Kumar Ray 4. Due to non-receipt of Form No.16 from M/s INA Bearings India Pvt. Ltd., the assessee could not include the income in computation of income and error occurred. 5. The appellant craves leave

SHRI ARVIN DAMODARLAL BIYANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -11(2) (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Arvind Damodarlal Biyani Dcit-11(2) 6-161, Mittal Estate, Mumbai Vs. Sir M. V. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aadpb 0689 H (Appellant) (Respondent) : : Shri Hiro Rai Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2023

80C and u/s.80D, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 11.01.2013 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the A.O. had made certain additions/disallowances. The A.O. had also initiated penalty proceedings and penalty amounting to Rs.15,85,836/- was levied vide order dated

J.P MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 7 of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 3.1. During the course of hearing it was stated at the very out set by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that all the grounds are covered with the order of the Tribunal of earlier years in assessee

NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

80C for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2006.] ITA 1964/Mum/2014 9 Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “cost”, in relation to any long-term specified asset, means the amount invested in such specified asset out of capital gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset

CHARU BIPINKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) of the Act in its order dated 30.12,against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee in the impugned order dated 31.01.2011, confirmed the addition made U/S- 50C of the Act,while considering the cost of improvement, the CIT(A) restricted

BIPINKUMAR V.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) of the Act in its order dated 30.12,against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee in the impugned order dated 31.01.2011, confirmed the addition made U/S- 50C of the Act,while considering the cost of improvement, the CIT(A) restricted

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

Section 282A, even in\nthe absence of a physical or digital signature. Given\nthat the Hon'ble ITAT is bound by the rulingsof its\nown jurisdictional High Court,and in light of the\nprinciple laid down in CIT v. Smt. Godavari devi Saraf\nSupra Note 6, the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad\nHighCourtin Vikas Gupta Supra Note 1 cannot

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction