DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which has been reproduced in the penalty order. The Ld. Assessing Officer place reliance upon various decisions and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E of the Act. Penalties were imposed as has been mentioned in the respective penalty order. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which has been reproduced in the penalty order. The Ld. Assessing Officer place reliance upon various decisions and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E of the Act. Penalties were imposed as has been mentioned in the respective penalty order. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which has been reproduced in the penalty order. The Ld. Assessing Officer place reliance upon various decisions and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E of the Act. Penalties were imposed as has been mentioned in the respective penalty order. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which has been reproduced in the penalty order. The Ld. Assessing Officer place reliance upon various decisions and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E of the Act. Penalties were imposed as has been mentioned in the respective penalty order. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

transfer taking place between each other. Therefore, according to the assessee, penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not attracted. However, Additional CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by separate orders dated 10.09.2014 passed u/s 271D/271E of the Act respectively against the assessee. Aggrieved by the penalty

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer pricing order dated 28.10.2019 has considered comparable market rate for corporate guarantee commission @1.5% and accordingly has made adjustment to the ALP in respect of Corporate Guarantee by 0.5% as the assessee has already charged guarantee commission @ 1%, amounting to Rs. 1,34,40,410/-. Therefore, contention of the assessee is rejected. Visen Industries Ltd. 5.8 Thus, in view

ITO - 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S FILM WAVES COMBINES P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]}} [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (ad) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] {sub-section (1)[or sub-section (1A)] of section 8 C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. MACROTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

transfer balances to consolidate debts, to correct clerical errors etc. Further, the Tribunal records that as observed by this Court in Triumph International Finance (supra) that journal entries constituted a recognized modes of recording of transactions and in the absence of any adverse finding by the authorities that the journal entries were made with a view to achieve purposes

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAHAJANAND HI TECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transferred 50% of the value of advertisement services to SNCML for adjustment against the flat booked in SNCML and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee which had given advance to employee for expenses to be incurred at the project developed by the assessee. However

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAHAJANAND HI TECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transferred 50% of the value of advertisement services to SNCML for adjustment against the flat booked in SNCML and the balance amount was paid through proper banking channels. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee which had given advance to employee for expenses to be incurred at the project developed by the assessee. However

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

271D of the Income-tax Act. 1961 SI No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 refer to the categories mentioned in the preceding table inserted in page 23 of the order relating to Classification of Reasonable Causes? 29. Submission of the assessee justifying the claim of immunity u/s 273B of the Act to the impugned journal entries

SATIDHAM SYNTEX LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Satidham Syntex Ltd. Acit Range-5(3), Vajras, No. 1445, 28Th Main, Mumbai. South End ‘A’ Cross, Vs. Jaya Nagar, 9Th Block, Banglore-560069. Pan: Aafcs6656N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pending Advances amount to Miss. B. Sarita and Mr. Prashant. The transactions are merely book entry which does not attract the provision of section 269SS and 269T. Hence, no penalty u/s 271D and 271E can be levied. The assessee has received the payment by Account Payee Cheques and extinguishes its liability by mutual consent by passing Journal Entry

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DWELLERS PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue and CO of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

transferring the asset and the liabilities to the sister concerns by way of journal entries does not constitute the loan or deposit in term of money within the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. It was also explained that back to back entries while receiving payment or making 5 CO. 111/Mum/2018 final payment is always by account

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act empowers

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

transfer pricing audits being simultaneously carried out, etc. In any case the assessee had filed partial details vide letter dated 18.10.2013. 4.2.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the impugned order when the learned CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act empowers