SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section brought to tax. When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 153A of the SRP 41/61 ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case 3.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

273B and levied penalty of Rs. 99,200/- u/s 272A(2)(k) of the 1961 Act for delay filing of the statement of tax deducted at source, as under:- Quarter TDS No. of days TDS Amount Penalty Rs. Penalty amount statement delay (Rs.) 100/ - per day restricted to ( Rs.) of delays Form no. (davs xlOOl

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

273B of the Act and hence the transactions passed through journal entries though would be hit by the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, since reasonable cause is established in the instant case, the assessee company would get immunity from levy of penalty thereon. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

DCIT CC 1, MUMBAI vs. SANJU KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Act. Therefore, once the amount in question is treated as income, it cannot again be treated as loan for the purpose of initiating penalty proceeding under section 271D. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Diwan Enterprise v/s CIT, [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Del.). Learned A.R. submitted

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 ) D.C.I.T, Cc-7(3), M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. 412, Vardhman Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan No. Aabcl1117D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Neraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 12.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range-7, Mumbai (For Short ―Addl. Cit‖) Under Sec. 271D & Sec. 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ―Act‖), Dated 29.06.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. As The Issues Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals Are Interwoven Or In Fact Intertwined, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: ―1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon‘Ble Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.1,99,68,616/- U/S 271D Holding That There Was Reasonable Cause U/S 273B For Entering On Transaction To Transaction Basis In The Given Case For The Existence Of Reasonable Cause U/S 273B Which Led To The Exigency Of Contravention Of Provisions Of Sections 269Ss/St.

68,616/- u/s 271D holding that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for entering on transaction to transaction basis in the given case for the existence of reasonable cause u/s 273B which led to the exigency of contravention of provisions of sections

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

SAINT GOBAIN MATERIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION SAS,FRANCE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

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

273B of the Act. The word 'may' also includes the word 'may not'. Reliance can be placed on an authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan" AIR 1961 SC 1575, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the Section 68

SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 3, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.Cit, (Tds)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang House, 5Th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal New Marine Lines Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Charni Road Pan:Aadcs 0954 M Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Dharmendra M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 8.10.2014 & 19.5.2014, Of The Cit(A)-14 The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Years.Issue Involved In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K)Of The Act,For Filing Quarterly Returns In Form Number 24Q/ 26Q Belatedly.So,We Are Adjudica - Ting All The Appeals By Single Order.

68,500/- and Rs.99,200/- for filing the return late in Form No.24Q and Form No.26Q respectively. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).Before her,the assessee made the same arguments that were advanced before the AO.The FAA,referring to section

AISHWARYA RAI BACHCHAN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

273B of the Act. He submitted, if the assessee shows reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source, penalty cannot be imposed. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee had issued a certificate indicating that the payment of U.S. $ 77,500, to the non–resident would not attract the provisions of section 195 in view

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

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