What is 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT authority for?

In penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), the initial burden is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The burden shifts to the assessee only if they fail to offer a satisfactory explanation for undisclosed income.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 270A, Section 132, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 270A(9)(e).

102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT (219 ITR 267)

Q: How many judgments cite 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT (219 ITR 267), spanning 2008 to 2025.

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…ii) 123 ITR 457 (SC) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 519 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT iv) 292 ITR 11 (SC) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT v) 190 Taxman 157 (Del) CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Ltd. vi) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation vii) 219 ITR 267 (Del) CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Limited viii) 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB) CIT V. H. Abdul Bakshi ix) 219 CTR 447 (Kar) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd. v. ACIT x) 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed in 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal "It is well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had conce…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…was further submitted by the Ld. AR that similar views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the ba…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…was further submitted by the Ld. AR that similar views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the ba…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…was further submitted by the Ld. AR that similar views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the ba…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…was further submitted by the Ld. AR that similar views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the ba…

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

…rations that arise in penalty proceedings are different from those in assessment proceedings. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions: • CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Limited 190 Taxman 157 (Del.) • CIT vs. J. K. Synthetics Limited: 219 ITR 267 (Del) • Jainarayan Babulal vs. CIT: 170 ITR 399 (Bom) 2.24. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), categorically held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings of assessment, it is inde…

AF-TAAB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST.C.I.T. CIR.2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6913/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 73

…would have significance in the penalty proceedings also but they are not decisive or determinative. This position has been established in several decisions which include CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT v. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi). 4. With respect to the fact that the assessee had accepted the view taken by the Assessing Officer that V the loss due to trading in shares was in the nature of a speculative loss, the assessee contended that in the 15 I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2012 Af-taab Investment Company Ltd. penalty proceedings, it can take up the plea that the claim ma…

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…mandatory/ automatic. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under:- a) Ananthram Veersinghaiah & Co. [1980] (123 ITR 457 (Supreme Court) b) CIT vs. Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass (1995)214 1TR 726 (Delhi HC) c) CIT vs JK Synthetics Ltd (1996)219 ITR 267 (Delhi HC) d) CIT vs Dharmachand L. Shah (1993)204 ITR 462 (Bombay HC) 11 e) CIT vs Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (Allahabad HC) IV) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) cannot be a reason to impose penalty under section 271(l)(C)of the Act. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT v. AT & T Communication Se…

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…ent proceedings cannot possibly bind the authority who tries the assessee for an offence. For this proposition, strength is drawn from the following case laws: 1) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H); 2) CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del.); 3)Muniappa Gounder (B) v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 787 (Mad. 4) CIT v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. (H) [1986] 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB); 5) CIT v. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.). 8 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO It has also been held that an assessee is entitled to submit fresh evidence in the course of penalty proceedings. It i…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI vs. DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…Lachman Dass (1995) 214 ITR 726, 729 (Del), it is held that for all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings. In CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 267, 270 (Del), it is held that as the proceedings for imposition of penalty and assessment proceedings are two separate and independent proceedings, separate and distinct provisions have been enacted in the statute for initiation of the same. 7.5 As mentioned earlier, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee claimed additional depre…

SH. JAI PRAKASH SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2646/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, Vs. Acit, 83, Sunder Nagar, New Circle-20(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aagpp8743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Somil Aggarwal & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.Dr

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, Vs. ACIT, 83, Sunder Nagar, New Circle-20(1), New Delhi Delhi PAN :AAGPP8743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Somil Aggarwal & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR Date of hearing 19.12.2018 Date of pronouncement 20.12.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/01/2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ne…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…850/-…..” 8. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Santosh Textiles (1997) 228 ITR 221 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Hind Rajasthan Construction Co. (1979) 116 ITR 304 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation 145 Taxman 530 " CIT Vs JK Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee while filing the original return of income and also in the return submitted in compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the Act had not disclosed any income from sale of scrap. He further observed that during the search, the scrap sales to the tune o…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…850/-…..” 8. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Santosh Textiles (1997) 228 ITR 221 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Hind Rajasthan Construction Co. (1979) 116 ITR 304 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation 145 Taxman 530 " CIT Vs JK Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee while filing the original return of income and also in the return submitted in compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the Act had not disclosed any income from sale of scrap. He further observed that during the search, the scrap sales to the tune o…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…850/-…..” 8. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Santosh Textiles (1997) 228 ITR 221 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Hind Rajasthan Construction Co. (1979) 116 ITR 304 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation 145 Taxman 530 " CIT Vs JK Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee while filing the original return of income and also in the return submitted in compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the Act had not disclosed any income from sale of scrap. He further observed that during the search, the scrap sales to the tune o…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2201/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…850/-…..” 8. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Santosh Textiles (1997) 228 ITR 221 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Hind Rajasthan Construction Co. (1979) 116 ITR 304 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation 145 Taxman 530 " CIT Vs JK Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee while filing the original return of income and also in the return submitted in compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the Act had not disclosed any income from sale of scrap. He further observed that during the search, the scrap sales to the tune o…

AVADH NARAYAN K YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 991/MUM/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

…ough the learned Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah affirmed Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.(supra) and held as under: “8. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. been followed in Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del) and CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 267 (Del). Same is the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Dajibhai Kanjibhai (1991) 189 ITR 41 (Bom). 7 9.In our opinion, the legal position is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT & Anr. vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under s. 27…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JUHI INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Circle-4(1), L-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 407, C.R. Building, New Delhi I.P. Estate, (Pan:Aaacj2146B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…t of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Texturium Vs. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 782 and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V s. Chetandan Lachhmandas [1995] 214 ITR 726 and CIT v. lK. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi). 4.5 It is trite law that merely because an addition has been made in the assessment order and confirmed in appeal, levy of penalty is not automatic. In National Textiles Vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 the Gujarat High Court held that it is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount has been assessed as income, the circumstance…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…been held that penalty cannot be an automatic consequence of the additions in the quantum proceedings. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the following decisions: (i). T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) (ii). CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi) 10 ITA No.862 to 865/Del./2014 (iii). Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Delhi) (iv). CIT v. Aretic Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi) 6.5 He also submitted that the Delhi High Court has held, in the case of CIT vs Globe Sales Corporation [2005] 196 CTR 187 (Del), that merely because certain additions…

SH. CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chander Pal Aggarwal vs ITO 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. ADNPA1455D Assessee by Sh. R.S. Adlakha, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi for A.Y. 2006-07, wherein he has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 3,30,401/-, imposed under section 271(1)…

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

…fide explanation was given by 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 suppli…

102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT

What is 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

AF-TAAB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST.C.I.T. CIR.2(1), MUMBAI

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

DCIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI vs. DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

SH. JAI PRAKASH SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

AVADH NARAYAN K YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(2), MUMBAI

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JUHI INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

SH. CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAQUAR & CO LTD