MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.OPEL PAPER MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the income tax act. He submitted that the learned CIT – A did not consider that addition of the credit during the year is required to be made at least. He submitted that in both these cases, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not proved. It was also stated that assessee has not submitted anything

M/S.OPEL PAPER MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the income tax act. He submitted that the learned CIT – A did not consider that addition of the credit during the year is required to be made at least. He submitted that in both these cases, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not proved. It was also stated that assessee has not submitted anything

MOHAMED IMRAN MOHAMED SIDDIQUE KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

sections": [ "Sec. 147", "Sec. 148", "Sec. 131", "Sec. 142", "Sec. 133(6)", "Sec. 274", "Sec. 271", "Sec. 144", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 271(1)(C)", "Sec. 271F

VIJAYKUMAR RAMRATAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

271F of the Act. 9. Consequential Interest: 9.1 Levying an interest of INR 5,00,877 in the assessment order under Section 234A of the Act. 9.2 Levying an interest of INR 12,71,457 in the assessment order under Section 234B of the Act.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative

POONAM SANTOSH GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

section u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act 1961 10. The Appellant craves leave to add amend and or delete any of the above grounds of Appeals.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that filed return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 25.05.2015 declaring income of rs. 3,18,109/- from business and profession and other sources. Case

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(e) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” 2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated as per the regulations of UAE and is registered with the RAK Investment Authority Free Zone, UAE on 01.04.2010. The assessee is the wholly owned subsidiary

ACIT CEN CIR 2, THANE vs. A.C. CHENNA REDDY, PANVEL

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle-2 Shri A.C. Chenna Reddy बनाम/ Thane Pawar Industrial Shivaji Nagar, Village Estate, Edulji Road Gavhan, Panvel 410 206 Vs. Charai, Mumbai 400 601 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acdpa3902G Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri A.C. Chenna Reddy Acit, Central Circle-2 Flat No.103, Manisha Tower बनाम/ Thane Pawar Industrial Tata Colony, Mulund (E) Estate, Edulji Road Vs. Mumbai 400 081 Charai, Mumbai 400 601 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acdpa3902G

271F were initiated with the issuance of notice on 24.03.2009, which was served upon the assessee. One more opportunity was provided to the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1), issued on 24.03.2009 and served upon the assessee on 25.03.2009, calling for the details 13 Shri A.C. Chenna Reddy, M/s. A.C. Chenna Reddy & Akshar Filter Combine, M/s. A.C. Chenna Reddy (Firm

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271F of the Act (for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07), since confirmed by the Tribunal (in ITA Nos. 2919- 2929/Mum/2009 dated 16.4.2010/APB-9, pgs. 1771-1773), and which order stands admittedly accepted by the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, admittedly no original return u/s. 139 was filed (APB 10, pg. 1781). The question of the assessee requesting

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

271F of the Act (for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07), since confirmed by the Tribunal (in ITA Nos. 2919- 2929/Mum/2009 dated 16.4.2010/APB-9, pgs. 1771-1773), and which order stands admittedly accepted by the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, admittedly no original return u/s. 139 was filed (APB 10, pg. 1781). The question of the assessee requesting

SULTAN SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

68,763/- minus 51,69,000/-), that deemed as income of appellant, from business activities, can be estimated @8% of the However, an addition of Rs. 1,19,91,981/- has been made by the Ld.AO on 21/12/2019 u/s. 144 of the Act. The Id. AO also imposed penalty u/s. 271F, 271 AAC of the Act. 8. First

SULTAN SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

68,763/- minus 51,69,000/-), that deemed as income of appellant, from business activities, can be estimated @8% of the However, an addition of Rs. 1,19,91,981/- has been made by the Ld.AO on 21/12/2019 u/s. 144 of the Act. The Id. AO also imposed penalty u/s. 271F, 271 AAC of the Act. 8. First

VINAYAK PAI,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Vinayak Ganpat Pai National Faceless Centre (Nfac), 1/11, Kika Mansion, 7 Kika Street, Mumbai Vs. Gulalwadi, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aqupp7055J (Appellant) (Respondent) :

section 69 of the Income Tax Act and treated the same as unexplained investment and taxed the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty proceedings

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

68,205/- which has been reported the Service Tax Return and receipt of Rs.68,64,865/- in the form of contract receipts during the FY 2012-13. Since, in this case no return of income has been filed for the year under consideration accordingly, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of Income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

68,205/- which has been reported the Service Tax Return and receipt of Rs.68,64,865/- in the form of contract receipts during the FY 2012-13. Since, in this case no return of income has been filed for the year under consideration accordingly, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of Income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

68,205/- which has been reported the Service Tax Return and receipt of Rs.68,64,865/- in the form of contract receipts during the FY 2012-13. Since, in this case no return of income has been filed for the year under consideration accordingly, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of Income