1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh

276 ITR 351High Court2005#4659 most cited

What is 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on an estimation basis. This applies when income is assessed based on estimated profit, especially if substantially reduced by higher authorities.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raj Bans Singh · 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment · estimated additions · estimated income · estimation basis · no penalty on estimate · concealment of income · section 271 · penalty levy

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 144Section 250Section 274Section 275Section 275ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27total incomepersonnfacbusinessdocument

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Santosh Shivaji Lad, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…elow mentioned judgments it has been held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on estimate basis. • CIT vs Smt K Meenakshi Kutty in 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) • CIT(A) vs Valmik bhai H Patel in 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd in 216 ITR 92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 422 (Mad) 7.15. The AO i…

Shobha Ram Sharma, Mathura vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 111/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the AO, of the gross total receipt as above. The ld. AR contended that it is a case of an estimate against an estimate. As such, there was no concealment of income and accordingly no penalty is imposable as held in the case of ‘CIT vs. Raj Ban Singh’, (2005) 276 ITR 351(All). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.’, (2010) 322 ITR 316(Del); and ‘(2010) 231 CTR 524’, and in many decisions of ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra, (Supra), it was held that penalty is not leviable when income was assessed based on estimated profit and substantially reduced 3 | P a g e by the Tribunal. In the p…

Anup A. Shah, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

…aid down in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugne…

ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi vs. Bistro Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1335/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…lain its purchases to the satisfaction of the A.O. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant has offered to explain the said purchases with reference to peculiar characteristics to its business. Further, as has been held in CIT vs. Rajbans Singh 276 ITR 351, CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and other related cases on identical facts, penalty is liable to be cancelled, where an amount has been enhanced on an estimated basis. In the said judgment the Hon’ble ITAT had relied the decision in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd., wherein it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) can…

Bistro Hospitality P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.It, Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1117/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…lain its purchases to the satisfaction of the A.O. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant has offered to explain the said purchases with reference to peculiar characteristics to its business. Further, as has been held in CIT vs. Rajbans Singh 276 ITR 351, CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and other related cases on identical facts, penalty is liable to be cancelled, where an amount has been enhanced on an estimated basis. In the said judgment the Hon’ble ITAT had relied the decision in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd., wherein it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) can…

Shri Krishanmohan Ramwadh Shingh, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…aid down in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugne…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…4] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). When the addition is made on the estimatebasis, no penalty is sustainable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:— ITA No. 3048/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugn…

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

…D-124] 2. Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-MUM-283] 3. CIT Vs. Gordhandas Moolchand 116 ITR 893 (Mad.) 4. C.LT. Vs. Sureshkumar Bansal and another 254 ITR 130 (P & H) 5. Harigopal Singh Vs. C.I. T. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) 6. C.1.T. Vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All) 7. CIT v/s. Mahendra Sigh Khedia (2012) 252 CTR 453 -Raj HC 8. CIT vis. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 288-Chhatishgadh HC 9. CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd (2010)322 ITR 316- Delhi HC" 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 12.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,566/-. Subsequently on the ba…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…imposed, a few case laws on this issue are enumerated below:- > CIT vs. Smt. K. MeenakshiKutty 258ITR 494(Mad). 6 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., > Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85(P&H). > CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). > CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). > CIT vs. Lallubhaijogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) > CIT vs. Shivnarayanjamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 ITR 121 > CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 11…

Hiten Yogesh Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2283/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…us purchases which comes to Rs.3,74,100/-, We are of the considered view that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The law that penalty would not be exigible merely because an addition is made on estimate basis was reiterated in CIT v. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) and CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law we delete the penalty of Rs.1,20,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate…

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…l Singh vs. CIT reported in 125 Taxmann 2521258 ITR 85 (P & H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt. K. Meenaksht Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). 9 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf (iii) CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Pate/ 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Pate/ 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (NIP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)] (viii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. DM/o/7 Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] Reliance is…

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…decisions in case CIT vs. Raharnat Khan Birbaf Khan Badruddin & Party (1999) 240 ITR 778 (Raj), in case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H), in case of CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co.[2002] 254 ITR 191 (P&H), in case of CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All), in case of J. A. Trivedi Bros. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 705 (MP) and in case of Bombay Hardware Syndicate v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad). 35. It was finally submitted that it is clear that penalty has been imposed without considering the argument made before the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), further, as demonstrated hereinbefore basic ingredients of…

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…) 303 ITR 53 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT verses Kailash crockery house (1999) 235 ITR 554 (Patna); CIT verses metal products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT vs. Whitelene chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj); CIT verses Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (Allahabad); CIT verses Aero traders (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); CIT verses Modi industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (Punjab and Haryana) and CIT verses Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378. Further reliance is also made on the decisions reported in CIT verses Reliance Petro products (P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 and also CIT verses DCM Ltd Limited…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

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

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…1) 3) Vijay K.Talwar vs. CIT (1 SCC 673) 4) Commissioner Customs vs. Stone and Marble (2011) (12 SCC 758) 5) CIT vs. Target Construction Co. Ltd. 231 taxman 55 (All.) 4.2 Further, it was held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (276 ITR 351), that when income is estimated by different authorities right from Assessing Officer to Tribunal and it was a simple case of one estimate against another estimate, and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Similarly, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Badve (138 ITR 82); Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of…

1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh (276 ITR 351) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax