CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

68,761/- (ii) Difference on Income from House Property of Hari Niwas property `6,28,866/- (iii) Expenses disallowed – claimed against interest income `3,04,293/- (iv) Society and maintenance charges disallowed 2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect

ACIT. CIR.-9(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VASPARR FISCHER LTD. (NOW M/S. PRESIDENT CONTAINERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,82,042/-. A revised return was filed on 01.06.1977 declaring loss of `26,46,947/- after claiming depreciation of Rs.3,05,93,292/- for the reason that it has withdrawn its claim of depreciation in respect of leased transaction of Bangalore Gases. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,82,042/-. A revised return was filed on 01.06.1977 declaring loss of `26,46,947/- after claiming depreciation of Rs.3,05,93,292/- for the reason that it has withdrawn its claim of depreciation in respect of leased transaction of Bangalore Gases. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section

PRECISION CONTANEURS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VASPARR FISCHE LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,82,042/-. A revised return was filed on 01.06.1977 declaring loss of `26,46,947/- after claiming depreciation of Rs.3,05,93,292/- for the reason that it has withdrawn its claim of depreciation in respect of leased transaction of Bangalore Gases. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section

DCIT(IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUREX SOUTHEAST ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SINGAPORE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,852/- is\nactually not in the nature of Royalty, but business income not taxable in absence\nof PE in India as per Article 5 read with Article 7 of the India-Singapore Tax\nTreaty. Thus, the Appellant has submitted that since the quantum issue is already\nsettled in favour of the Company by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling

MICROPOINT COMPUTERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Micropoint Computers Private V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Limited, 17/18, Navketan Industrial Circle 10(2)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Estate, Opp. Onida, Mahakali M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093

68,837/- out of the administrative expenses aggregating to ₹.1,44,08,808/-. 2. The commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding addition of unexplained commission income of ₹.4,50,596/-.”. 2 M/s. Micropoint Computers Private Limited 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee filed letter dated 03rd April, 2018 requesting for withdrawal of appeal and requested

ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TRENDS HOLDING & CONSULTANCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

section was for providing remedy for loss, of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under s. 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT & Anr. (cited

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an Bhavesh Pravinchandra Sheth 7 opportunity

DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,THANE vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, THANE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

section 271(1)(c) would not be attracted in such a case. 4.3 Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 0241 (SC); R.W. Promotions (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom); CIT vs. Gem Granites (2014) 42 Taxman.com