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

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was correct." [As per Head Note] In the present case, the reason given in the show-cause notice was that duty drawback received by the assessee could not be considered as profit derived from export in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sterling Foods (supra

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was correct." [As per Head Note] In the present case, the reason given in the show-cause notice was that duty drawback received by the assessee could not be considered as profit derived from export in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sterling Foods (supra

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 is separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.‖ (Empahsis Supplied) 9.5. During the appellant proceedings before the CIT(A), the Assessee pointed out that the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Ultratech Cement for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on which reliance was placed

MSM DISCOVERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Each of the above ground of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income