ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

penalty levied on the disallowance of depreciation on stores and spares- Rs.47.46 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

penalty levied on the disallowance of depreciation on stores and spares- Rs.47.46 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

penalty levied on the disallowance of depreciation on stores and spares- Rs.47.46 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

penalty levied on the disallowance of depreciation on stores and spares- Rs.47.46 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

penalty levied on the disallowance of depreciation on stores and spares- Rs.47.46 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

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

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

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

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

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

penalty on depreciation, considering that penalty covered by clause (a) of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) instead of clause

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. ( ERSTWHILE ANAGRAM FINANCE LTD), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 1995-96

penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to Tata Telecom Ltd. is concerned, the amount of penalty is Rs.95

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

penalty in respect of disallowance on depreciation on KGD6, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation under \"oil and gas division

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of depreciation on steel purchase even though

CANA GLASS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Cana Glass Ltd. Vs. Ito Ward 9(1)(2) Predpl, 52, Natasha House Aayakar Bhavan, Hill Road, Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc5587D Appellant) .. Respondent)

penalty imposed in relation to the denial of claim of depreciation also.” 7. Since, the coordinate Bench has deleted the penalty

ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DHADDA DIAMONDS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by issuing notice under section

CANA GLASS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Cana Glass Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Predpl, 52, Natasha House, Income Tax, Circle 9 (1), Hill Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400050 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5587D

penalty of claim of depreciation. But the Tribunal deleted the same. Hence, in the present case the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable