GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

reassessment proceedings as got abated and he issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on Grasim Industries Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 26.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

reassessment proceedings as got abated and he issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on Grasim Industries Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 26.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment showed his bona fides, (v) the claim of bona fide belief need not be substantiated with documentary evidence but can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence; (vi) penalty is not an automatic consequence of addition to income; (vii) concealment implies that the person is hiding, covering up or camouflaging an income; penalty is not leviable in case where assessee

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

TDS)’) passed order on 28.3.2011 raising demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO on majority of the issues, but gave partial relief with regard to the period for computing interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 5. In the appeal filed before

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

TDS)’) passed order on 28.3.2011 raising demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO on majority of the issues, but gave partial relief with regard to the period for computing interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 5. In the appeal filed before

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

TDS)’) passed order on 28.3.2011 raising demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO on majority of the issues, but gave partial relief with regard to the period for computing interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 5. In the appeal filed before

M/S K R CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, which cannot be termed as erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9 K.R.Construction 8. The Ld. AR, further submitted that insofar as difference in turnover, as per two set of financial statements, the assesee has filed various details, including TDS certificates and reconciled turnover reported

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. GUNDECHA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as infructuous and cross objection filed by the assessee for Asst

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6102/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Dcit- 24(3), Vs. M/S. Gundecha Builders, Room No. 702, C-11, 7Th Floor, 141, Gudecha House, B.K.C, Bandra (E), Jawahar Naga, Mumbai-400 051. Goregaon(W), Mumbai- 400 062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafg0848E .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

TDS. Since the assessee’s income for Asst. Year 2006-07 has been escaped assessment in respect of above two payments, proceedings u/s 147 3 CO No. 122/MUM/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 was initiated. In response to the notice u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished relevant details through its authorized representative. After hearing

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

TDS as per the provision of section 40(a) of the Act, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ` 30,94,732/- being the payment made to a non-resident distributor to the total income of the assessee. Now, under these facts, we shall analyze, the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s

MEHUL GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been fulfilled. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,34,727/- on protective basis without appreciating

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. KANTILAL C JAIN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) Shri Kantilal C. Jain held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

u/s 10(23G) not allowable as the bank was neither infrastructure capital company nor infrastructure fund established for mobilizing resources as found while scrutinizing the return for AY 2005-06. ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 6.3 The Ld. counsel for assessee has drawn our attention to the fact that the reassessment proceedings have been triggered merely on revenue

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS claim. 2. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee asked for reasons for reopening of assessment and further requested to treat the original return and revised return filed by the assessee as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 r.w.s

THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS claim. 2. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee asked for reasons for reopening of assessment and further requested to treat the original return and revised return filed by the assessee as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 r.w.s

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character