(1) Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.

157 ITR 822High Court1986#10213 most cited

What is (1) Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely because an expenditure claim is disallowed. The disallowance must stem from the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars, indicating conscious and deliberate concealment.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · disallowance of expenses · conscious concealment · business

Issues it is cited on

levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)business

Judgments citing (1) Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.

Paranjape Pendse Associates, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1145/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…imposed for disallowance of expenses on estimate basis. Such decisions include CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H); Naranbhai Veerabhai and Co. vs. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 1017 (Guj) and Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del). Since the major amount has already been deleted by the CIT(A) / NFAC and the only addition is an estimated lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- out of total expenses of Rs.1,27,47,339/- debited in the Profit and Loss Account, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable in the instant case…

Asset Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1463/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asset Motors Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Bungalow No. 3, Plot No. 14, Union Vs. Tax-15(1)(1), Park, Chembur, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400071. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahca 7847 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Paranjape, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

…that penalty under section 271(l)(c) is not leviable merely because disallowance of a particular claim made by the assesses is upheld. g) In this connection, your attention is invited to the following decision: Delhi Cloth and Genefral Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (157 ITR 822) (Del): "Penalty far concealment of income can be imposed only if there is conscious and deliberate concealment on the part of the assesses. The mere fact that a claim for expenditure stands disallowed does not by itself lead to the inference that the assessee had in accurate particulars in regard to that item. h) Our client further invite your a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1270/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., Dlf Infinity Tower-A, 8Th Floor, Dlf Circle-12(1), New Delhi Cybercity, Sector-25, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1483Q Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ing Officer can invoke the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) and impose penalty. 16. We also hold that the penalty cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 157 ITR 822 wherein it was held that the mere fact that a claim for expenditure stands disallowed does not by itself lead to the inference that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in regard to that item. 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petorproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (2010) held that “inaccurate” and “particu…

Manpreet Singh Bhullar, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.923/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Manpreet Singh Bhullar The ITO बनाम C/o Surinder Babbar, FCA, Sector-2 Babbar & Co. Chartered Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh Accountant, Babbar Bhawan Green Tower, Sector-1, Parwanoo Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQPB1448K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Surinder Babbar, FCA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : S…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3504/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. PurushottamFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessment order cannot per-se become a basis for levy of penalty as levied in this case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following: • Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC), • Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1986 (157 ITR 822) (Delhi HC) • DC IT vs. Indiahit Com (P) Ltd (2006) 105 TTJ 501 (Del ITAT) • Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajaib Singh and Co [2002] 253 ITR 0630-[Punjab and Haryana High Court] • CIT vs. Shree Bala Finvest Pvt Ltd [2009] 2009-T10L-705-HC- AHMJT. That there is no closure of business of the assessee as affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3464/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. PurushottamFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessment order cannot per-se become a basis for levy of penalty as levied in this case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following: • Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC), • Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1986 (157 ITR 822) (Delhi HC) • DC IT vs. Indiahit Com (P) Ltd (2006) 105 TTJ 501 (Del ITAT) • Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajaib Singh and Co [2002] 253 ITR 0630-[Punjab and Haryana High Court] • CIT vs. Shree Bala Finvest Pvt Ltd [2009] 2009-T10L-705-HC- AHMJT. That there is no closure of business of the assessee as affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High…

M/S. Ms Shoes East Ltd, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 27I(1)(C)Section 69Section 80HSection 80I

…lia, relied on the following decisions in addition to the reliance placed on the decisions, as are mentioned in the order of ld. CIT(A) : (i). CIT vs. Honeywell Dace (India) Ltd., 292 ITR 169 (Del.) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., 157 ITR 822 (Del.) (iii). CIT vs. Oriental Power Cable Ltd., 303 ITR 49 (Raj.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relying on the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the penalty saddled against the assessee needs to be affirmed, as the purchases shown by the assessee as noted above were found to be bogus and the sellers from whom said purchases w…

CIT vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA - 1855 / 2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ITA No. 1855/2010 Page 1 of 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 6th November, 2012 % Date of Decision: 6th December, 2012 + ITA 1855/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Puneet Gupta, Standing Counsel. Versus MORGAN FINVEST PVT LTD. ......Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha & Mr.Somnath Shukla, Advs. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EA…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA/1855/2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ITA No. 1855/2010 Page 1 of 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 6th November, 2012 % Date of Decision: 6th December, 2012 + ITA 1855/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Puneet Gupta, Standing Counsel. Versus MORGAN FINVEST PVT LTD. ......Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha & Mr.Somnath Shukla, Advs. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EA…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…rketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1980)124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. ITO v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (1987)163 ITR 496 (Cal) 3. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1986)157 ITR 822 (Del) 4. CIT v. G.D.Naidu ( 1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras) ITA No.944/2011 Page 12 of 19 17. In a series of judgments, this Court has affirmed the aforesaid legal position and these judgments are :- 1. CIT v. Bacardi Martini…