KHANNA AND ANNADHANAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law concerning the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court also directed the appellant to deposit the balance tax amount.
What were the facts?
The appellant's appeal regarding the quantum of income was admitted. The appellant drew attention to notes attached to the return of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should have been imposed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 77/2012 . . . KHANNA AND ANNADHANAM ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advs. . . . versus . . . CIT ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. . . . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 30.01.2012 . C.M.No.1747/2012 . . . Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. . . . The application is disposed of. . . . ITA 77/2012 . . . It is pointed that quantum appeal being ITA 1286/2008 was admitted . by this Court vide order dated 8th September, 2010. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to notes, which were attached to the return of income. . Admit. . The following substantial question of law is framed:- . ?(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been imposed in the present case? . . . Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. However, liberty is granted to the parties to file documents/material, which were filed before the authorities/tribunal within a period of 12 weeks. . List in the category of ?Regular Matters? along with ITA No. 1286/2008. Liberty is granted to the appellant to ask for early hearing of this appeal and ITA 1286/2008. . C.M.No.1748/2012 . . . We are not inclined to grant stay. . . . It is pointed out that the appellant has already deposited Rs.25 lacs and the balance amount payable is Rs.21.28 lacs. The appellant should deposit the balance amount within a period of four weeks. The deposit made, will abide by the final outcome of the appeal. . The application is accordingly disposed of. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V. EASWAR, J. . JANUARY 30, 2012 . NA . . . $ 41, 42 and 43 .
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026