STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ` DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in a prior appeal. Therefore, the penalty order could not survive.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in textile and garment manufacturing, declared Nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on sale of depreciable assets and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The First Appellate Authority upheld the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 50(1),Section 115JB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.3 citing20 Taxmann.com 770 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार /PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order dt.29.3.2014 the assessee has filed the present appeal. Assessee – company ,engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of textile gods, readymade garments, chemicals ,filed its return of income on 29/9/2008, declaring Nil income under the normal provisions.The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 14/05/2010 determining its income at Rs.Nil under the normal provisions and book profit (-) Rs.63.74 crores u/s. 115JB of the Act. 2.Effective Ground of appeal is about levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act towards adjustment of written down value of motor vehicles, aggregating to Rs.1.44 crores, against the profit on sale of plant and machinery while computing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on sale of depreciable assets u/s.50(1) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the AO observed that STCG on sale of depreciable asset was not shown correctly . He computed the STCG at Rs.14.93 crores against Rs.13.48 crores offered for tax in the return of income.Vide his order dt.28.3.2013, the AO levied penalty of Rs.44.71 crores u/s.271(1)(c )of the Act after issuing a notice to the assessee alleging that it had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 3.During the appellate proceedings,the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the penalty order of the AO. During the course of hearing before us the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the Tribunal had deleted the addition in the quantum appeal vide its order dt.28/ 4/2017 (ITA/3623/Mum/2012). We find that the Tribunal while allowing the quantum appeal held that the issue raised by the assessee was covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High
4093/M/15(08-09) Standard Industries Court in the case of Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.(20taxmann.com770). As the quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, so, the penalty order would not survive. Effective Ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026