PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee has raised several issues in the above grounds of appeal and we shall deal the above issues raised by the assessee ground wise. 6. Ground No.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to Ground Nos. 2 to 12 which

SHRI. ASHOK L SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 18 (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ashok L. Shah, Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax, 29, Ideal Industrial Estate, Circle-18(2), Mathurdas Mill Compound,Mumbai- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. 400013. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amnps 2327 M Appellant Respondent

section clearly states that penalty may be levied on 'Concealment of Income' OR Inaccurate Particulars of Income. (iii) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty on the allegation of concealment of income, although on perusal of the Statement of accounts and the ITR submitted it was clear that full disclosures relating to the income and expenses were made

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

80G] or] under section 263 [or under section 271] [or undersection 272A] [***] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or an order passed by a [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or a [Principal Director General or] Director General or a [Principal Director or] Director under section 272A; [or]] [(d) an order

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee replied the said notice by submitting that all facts qua these items were fully disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and therefore these disallowances are not liable to any penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. However the AO was not convinced with the contentions and submissions

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on prorata basis as per appellant's computation is Rs 12,08,36,323/- The assessing officer is directed to allow the deduction after verifying the computation

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Life Insurance Dcit 3(2)(1), Corporation Of India, Room No.608, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, F&A Department, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 3Rd Floor, West Wing, New Marine Lines, “Yogakshema”, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(1), M/S. Life Insurance Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Corporation Of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Office, M.K. Road, Vs. Yogakshema, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 16. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 17. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234D

ASST. COMM OF INCOME TAX 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Life Insurance Dcit 3(2)(1), Corporation Of India, Room No.608, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, F&A Department, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 3Rd Floor, West Wing, New Marine Lines, “Yogakshema”, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(1), M/S. Life Insurance Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Corporation Of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Office, M.K. Road, Vs. Yogakshema, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act 16. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234B of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234C of the Act 17. erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234C of the Act; Charging of interest under section 234D

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves, leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 6 ITA No. 1710 and 1714/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves, leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 6 ITA No. 1710 and 1714/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. We shall deal with the appeal ground wise. 5. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, the same is not adjudicated. 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 7 are relating to addition on account of interim bonus paid. Ld. AR brought to our notice that

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. We shall deal with the appeal ground wise. 5. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, the same is not adjudicated. 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 7 are relating to addition on account of interim bonus paid. Ld. AR brought to our notice that

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. We shall deal with the appeal ground wise. 5. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, the same is not adjudicated. 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 7 are relating to addition on account of interim bonus paid. Ld. AR brought to our notice that

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1 THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted