CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

68,296/- Interest on others Rs. 6,35,386/- Depreciation Rs. 51,396/- Total ------------------- Rs.16,44,673/- =========== The aforesaid expenses were debited to the Profit and Loss Account which were disallowed by the A.O as the real estate development project was not completed during the year under consideration and the assessee was following Project Completion method. The AO however allowed

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 A penalty proceeding is a corollary

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 A penalty proceeding is a corollary

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

b y c o n f i r m i n g a s s e s s e e s a c t i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s i m p r o v e m e n t t o t h e structure. Therefore the penalty levied

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

b a i [ I T A N o . 1716/Mum/2017] • DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi [I.T.A .No.-6336/DeI/2012] g) It is submitted that the AO has wrongly levied penalty under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for TP adjustment. In fact Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) provides for penalty

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

b) The ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) through corrigendum cum order u/s. 154 after the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.11.2011. (c) The ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

68,610 ii) Guarantee Commission Rs.6,16,23,121 iii) Fee Income Rs.21,03,80,849 iv) Future Interest flows Rs.91,32,27,037 Rs.564,90,99,618 7. It is also not in dispute that the assessee offered an amount of Rs.4,40,19,95,794/- as expenses worked out on the basis of modified gross profit margin

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

271(1)(c) of I. T. Act 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars on income.‖ 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and detailed contentions were made by assessee before learned CIT(A) both on merits of allowability of deduction towards payments made to overseas agent towards commission as well on applicability

JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

68,331/- were in the nature of bad debts written off and therefore, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return of income had expired, and therefore, the Appellant filed revised computation of income

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

68. The authorities did not arrive at a finding that the consideration amount fixed for the sale of property was wholly inadequate. The authorities also do not show that what are the inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee. They also do not state that what should have been the accepted principles

DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. UNISYNTH CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act be upheld and Revenue’s appeal dismissed. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of Rs.14,53,833/- holding

AJANTA PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

68. Further,\nthe Ld. AO has also initiated penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) in\nthe instant case where no additions were made and, in a\nyear, where the section was non- existent.\n0.\nIn the case of Citron Infraprojects Ltd, for AY 2012-13 to\nAY 2018-19, the approval number granted by the Addl.\nCIT has not been mentioned