DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of ITA Nos. 6267 to 6269/Mum/2018 & CO Nos. 243 to 245/Mum/2019 depreciation on steel purchase even though the AO, in assessment order, held

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

penalty under section 271(b). In our view, the Assessing Officer has given sufficient notice in conformity with the proviso of section 92C(3). It is the assessee who had not responded and now taken a plea that a mandatory notice as required under section 92C(3) is not served upon the assessee. 8. The case law relied

RNT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

92C of the IT Act 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income(concealment of income.” particulars of income

SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Smartstream Technologies Dcit 8(3), India Pvt. Ltd. Aver Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. B-13, Mumbai-400020. Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. Pan: Aaacq2086M (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence and therefore explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted, 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the appellant in correct perspective. 5. The appellant prays that the penalty of Rs.29,36,705 levied under Section 271

CLESTRA LIFE SCIENCES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Clestra Life Sciences P. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(3)(1) (Formerly As Brahma Drugs P. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ‘A’ Wing. 604 Delphi Orchid Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076 Pan - Aaacb5795L Appellant Respondent

2,57,859/-; the learned CIT(A), 3 M/s. Clestra Life Sciences P. Ltd. however, proceeded to uphold the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment of `3,86,810/- made on the basis of TP provisions holding as under at para 4.4(ii) of the impugned order: - “4.4 I have

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

section 92C(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) of Rs 11.34,45,500 in respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of export of finished goods. 2. In doing so he failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) the Appellant had computed the price paid in the international transaction in accordance

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) of Rs 11.34,45,500 in respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of export of finished goods. 2. In doing so he failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) the Appellant had computed the price paid in the international transaction in accordance

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Sitel India Ltd. Dcit, Range-8(3), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, 501, Wing A &B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aafcs1297M Appellant Respondednt

271 (1) (c) of the Act, without appreciating that the Appellant had charged prices in 2 ITA 1675/Mum/2013 international transactions in accordance with the provisions of section 92C of the Act and in the manner prescribed under the Act, in complete good faith and with due diligence. The impugned order has been passed on a complete miss-appreciation

KENT ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

92C of the Act. Ground No. 6-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding /confirming the action of the Learned AO in erred in appreciating that the additions made in the assessment order is merely difference of opinion between the Appellant and the Learned AO/TPO

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act and stating that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 3. During pendency of the present appeal the assessee revised ground No. 1 of the appeal and raised the legal issue contending that since

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

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

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

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-6 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ENHANCE AMBIENT COMMUNICATION PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the impugned penalty order has been passed by the TPO levying penalty under section 271G of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the TPO called upon the assessee to furnish specific details under section 92C within the meaning of section

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 92C, nor in 'good faith and with 'due diligence'. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Explanation (7) is clearly leviable on this issue. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." 2

ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit-11(3)(2), M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 33/Mum/2016 (Ita No. 649/Mum/16 (A.Y- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. (Tp)A 1854/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C(A)(3), the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) on 27.03.2015. The Assessing Officer also made the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,62,70,200/- on account of advance given to M/s Ackruti City Limited (Akruti). On such the addition/disallowance and the adjustment suggested on account of ALP with regard

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

section 80IB of the Act has been adjudicated by us. We have, following the decision of ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 53 the ITAT in the case of the assessee for assessment year