ASST CIT CIRCLE-9 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S FIRE FLOAT (I) PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of thisl

M/S. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

928, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub- section (4) of section 920, then, the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee

ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Advance Construction Co. P. Dcit-8(1) Ltd. “Kavita” Plot No. 37, 2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Floor, Vithal Nagar Co-Op. Vs. Mumbai-20. Housing Soc. 11Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai -400049. Pan: Aabca0710B Appellant Respondent M/S Advance Construction Co. P. Dcit-8(1) Ltd. “Kavita” Plot No. 37, 2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Floor, Vithal Nagar Co-Op. Vs. Mumbai-20. Housing Soc. 11Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai -400049. Pan: Aabca0710B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nirmit Mehta (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Virender Singh (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income–Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable on the fact of the case, when the assessee has claimed deduction on the basis of statutory provision which was withdrawn by subsequent amendment in the Act. The submissions of ld DR for the revenue that the assessee has option to file the revise return of income has no force

VASAI VIKAS SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,VASAI, THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-3, THANE, QURESHI MANSION, GOKHALE ROAD, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vasai Vikas Sahakari Bank Limited Income Tax Officer Circle-3 Opp New English School, Vasai, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Mumbai-401201 Vs. Road, Mumbai- 400602 Pan No. Aaaav 0519 Q Appellant Respondent

928/- including addition of provision for levy encashment of Rs. 66,00,000/-. The Assessing officer, accordingly issued show cause notice to the assessee as why the penalty corresponding to the said addition of Rs. 66,00,000/- might not be levied for filing inaccurate particulars in return of income. In response, the assessee submitted that said claim for provision

PANKAJ P. SARAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 31 CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Flat Acit, Central Circle-31, No. 801, 8Th Floor, Shiv Vs. Central Range-7 Prisha, Plot, No. 65, Jvpd Mumbai, 4Th Floor, Link Road Scheme, Vile Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400049. Road, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Dcit, Central Circle- 5/E Vaibhav, 140, S V Road, Vs. 4(3), Mumbai, 19Th Floor, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- Air India Building, 400056. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Awungshi Gimsan, Cit Dr & Mr. Abirama Karthikeyan Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

928/- and unexplained cash deposits of Rs.14,33,500/-, totalling to Rs.1,31,84,428/-. Aggrieved by the penalty of Rs.40,73,990/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After going through the written submission filed by the assessee, reproduced at page 4-6 of the order dated

MRS SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

PRAMOD MUKUND DALVI,VIRAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI,THANE vs. DCIT CC , THANE

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. SUJATA PRAMOD DALVI, VIRAR EAST

In the result assessee’sground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.4. In addition to above grounds, the assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: - “Without prejudice to the grounds of appeals appended to the appeal memo the appellant seeks to raise the following additional legal ground of appeal

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

penalty 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.” The assessee, vide its letter dated 22.02.2018, has filed additional grounds of appeal, which read

HEINZ INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for various disallowances/ additions , Computation of MAT credit 10. erred in not carrying forward the MAT credit amounting to Rs 18,17,07,328 (including surcharge and education cess) to the subsequent years as claimed in the return of income for the AY 2012-13 11. Without prejudice to the above

KANTI BEVERAGES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

928/- was also levied and confirmed. 5. Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee pleaded that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are different. He submitted that just because addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings it will not lead to the conclusion that

RAKHI ANANT SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2006-07

928 days in filing the appeal, hence the same is hereby condoned. So this appeal is ordered to be registered and taken up for disposal on merits. 5. The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) qua the assessment year 2006-07 on the grounds inter

R.G. BULCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1180/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri R.G. Bulchandani, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ A/21, Darshan Apartments, 1(3)(1) V. Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400006. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadpb0862E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of IT Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has received income from salary, income from house property, income from business and profession and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

LAXMI DIAMONDS ,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, view of our judgment in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I T Act are initiated separately for filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, who not only confirmed the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act but also affirmed