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 366,315 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

M/S Euro Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…(1999) 235 ITR 544 (Pat) c. CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) d. CIT v. Whiteline Chemicals (Guj) (Tax Appeal No. 496/2102) dated 15.01.2013 e. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj) f. CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) g. CIT v. Aero Traders (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Delhi) h. CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (P&H) i. CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378 (Chattisgarh) j. Shiv Narain Jamnalal (MP High Court): 7 ITD 795: held that where trading addition has been made by rejecting the books of accounts, no penalty was imposable for…

M/S Naresh Katare, Contractor, Gwalior vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Gwalior

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 53 /AGR/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Naresh Katare, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Contractor, A/o SinghPur Income tax, Circle3, Road, Near Petrol Pump, Gwalior Morar, Gwalior (M.P.) PAN: AAFFN3404N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by: Shri Rajendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23/10/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 09/11/2017 ORDER PER, DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM: This appeal, by Assessee is directed against the order dated 1…

Smt. Parul Chaudhary, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6124/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 271

…lment on part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty order was not inconsonance in the provisions of Section 274/271 (a)(c) of the Income-tax- Act. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 as well as the jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 316. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that there is no clear indication that the accounts was maintained by cash basis or by mercantile basis. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly imposes the penalty…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ined that the addition of Rs.95,53.800/-, on account of suppressed profit was reduced to Rs.6,44,368/- by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further to Rs.1,07,395/- by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 and the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.1875/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the case of assessee itself. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri B.D. Naik, defended the addition/penalty. 2.1. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder the rel…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaquar & Co Ltd

Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs

ITA - 768 / 2010HC Delhi08 Jul 2010
Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…y the assessee for the rate of GP shown in the books of accounts as well as suppliers of the goods, which were not found by the department on subsequent enquiry. Learned AR also relied on various decisions reported at 297 ITR 441, 219 ITR 267, 288 ITR 487 and 276 ITR 351. In case of CIT Vs. 2010:DHC:11480 Raj Bans Singh – 276 ITR 351, Hon'ble Allahabad High led that estimation of income at a higher figure does not warrant any penal action u/s 271(1)(c). In the instant case, addition on account of gross profit on estimation basis has been retained keeping into view some of the suppliers which could not be traced…