COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD

ITA - 1420 / 2009HC Delhi26 August 201018 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to set aside the penalty, though on different grounds. The court found that the concealment of income did not lead to tax evasion because the assessment was made under Section 115JB, where the concealed items were irrelevant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, later revised. The Assessing Officer made additions including disallowing depreciation and deduction under Section 80HHC, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) and ITAT had set aside the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessment is made under Section 115JB and the concealed items are irrelevant for that computation. Whether penalty is leviable for debatable claims or when the law is not crystallized.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 115JB,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 104 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Reportable

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ Judgment reserved on: August 3, 2010. Judgment delivered on: August 26, 2010

Commissioner of Income Tax

..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate.

Versus

M/s. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1.

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.

In this appeal, we are concerned with the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessment year 2001-02. For the said assessment year the respondent-assessee had filed return declaring loss at Rs.43.47 crores. Thereafter, the revised return exhibiting the income at Rs.3,86,82,128/- was filed under the i i f S ti 115JB f th I T A t 1961 (f h t „th 2010:DHC:4186-DB

under Section 143(3) at a loss of Rs.36.95 crores as per normal pro

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →