2. 2. CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation

166 ITR 29High Court1987#6385 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 260ASection 35ABBSection 37(1)Section 115JBSection 155(18)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 27section 271section 271(1)(c)companyindiaprescribed

Judgments citing 2. 2. CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

…tion u/s 40(a)(ii) was suo-moto withdrawn - Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC [ITA No. 2682/Del/2024) vii. Pertaining to non-applicability of penal consequences in case more than one interpretation was possible-CIT v Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 29 (Cal) viii. Pertains to non-levy of penalty where the relevant provision was amended retrospectively, rendering the issue debatable and involving 6 no failure to disclose material facts-CIT v Yahoo India Pvt Ltd [2013] 33 taxmann.com 332 (Bombay) ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 [A] ix. Pertaining to non-applicability of penal consequences in case of debat…

SEOYON E-HWA SUMMIT AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Lalit Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr.I. Roopa, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43A

…/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature" 11. For the aforesaid preposition, he relied on the following judicial precedents also: • CIT v. Sivananda Steels Ltd. [2002] 256 (TR 683 (Mad) • CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation [1987] 166 ITR 29 (Cal) • Burmah Shell Of Storage Distributing Company of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 582 (Cal) 12. Per contra, the Ld.DR submits that there is concealment of income in the facts of the case and therefore, the AO has rightly levied penalty which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) which doesn’t require any interference from the part of this…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…been a concealment of particulars of income. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that penalty levied in the given facts and circumstances is illegal and invalid. We, therefore, cancel the same." In CIT Vs Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) (166 ITR 29) (Calcutta), the Calcutta High Court has held that: "The facts found by the Tribunal had not been challenged as perverse or based on no evidence. It was settled law that mere addition to the taxable income did not automatically lead to an order of penalty. No case for levy of penalty had been made out as two opinions were arrived at on the same fa…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…been a concealment of particulars of income. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that penalty levied in the given facts and circumstances is illegal and invalid. We, therefore, cancel the same." In CIT Vs Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) (166 ITR 29) (Calcutta), the Calcutta High Court has held that: "The facts found by the Tribunal had not been challenged as perverse or based on no evidence. It was settled law that mere addition to the taxable income did not automatically lead to an order of penalty. No case for levy of penalty had been made out as two opinions were arrived at on the same fa…

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

…hi. HC) e) Karan Ragh a v Exports P Ltd vs CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Del HC) f) CIT v. Krishna Maruti Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.coml48 (Delhi HC) g) Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. [2003] (259 ITR 212) (Rajasthan HC) h) Calcutta Credit Corporation [1987] (166 ITR 29) (Calcutta HC) i) Garg Engineering Co [1999] 235 ITR 451) (Allahabad High Court) j) CIT vs GD Naidu and Others (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras HC) k) Nuchem Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] (47ITD 487) (Delhi ITAT) II) Rejection of claim made by the Appellant by the AO cannot result in imposition of penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1027/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…reditors. In any case, when there is difference of opinion in respect of the addition between the Ld. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble ITAT, then on such amount penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable as held in the following cases:- • CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation 166 ITR 29 (Cal) 15 ITO, Bhiwadi Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Tanwar, Alwar In this case cash credit was added as income from other sources and interest paid thereon was disallowed. AAC deleted the addition but tribunal partly restored the addition. It was held that two opinions on the facts of the case were possible, concealment is not established and therefore p…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 961/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 753/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 752/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 293/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 484/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 754/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 404/IND/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r canvassing a view different from the Departmental view and where the Assessee is merely contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income Tax Officer; it would not call for any penalty. 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) 2. 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) CIT Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal.) It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two opinions are possible on same facts. 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarn…

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PECON SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1043/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Pecon Software Pvt. Ltd., En-27, 2Nd Floor Ward-2(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square, (Advantage Tower), Sector- 7Th Floor, Room V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91 No.21, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaccp 5314 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 11.03.2016, Passed In Case No.734/Cit(A)-1/W-2(1)/2014-15, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹22,06,701/- Levied In His Order Dated 31.07.2014, Involving Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. Learned Departmental Representative First Of All Takes Us To Cit(A)’S Following Findings Under Challenge Deleting The Impugned Penalty As Under:- “The Submissions & Material On Record Was Carefully Considered. The Finding Of The Ao Was That Claim Of Deduction U/S. 10A Of The It Act Can Be Taken Only After Getting Renewal Letter Of Permission From The Appropriate Authority, For Stp & The Appellant Company Filed Its Income Tax Return Without Getting Lop From The Appropriate Authority, Holding That The Intention Was To Reduce Its Total Income After Getting Wrong Deduction U/S 10A Of The It Act.

Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)

…way fall within the mischief of consciously and deliberately concealing the particulars of income or submission of inaccurate particulars of income. The hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta has held in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation 166 ITR 29 (Cal) as follows:- ‘It is settled law that mere addition to taxable income does not automatically lead to an order of penalty. Further investigations and findings is necessary before penalty can be imposed. In the instant case, the case of the assessee that he had not deliberately concealed his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particula…

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 600/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…vs. ITO-48 taxman.com - 28 ITR(Trib) 523(Ahd.) Penalty U/s 271(l)(c) cannot be imposed merely on ground that there were defects in accounts books of assessee and flat rate of Profit is applied to arrive gross Profit. (i) CIT vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation - 166 ITR 29 (Cal) The Calcutta High Court held that mere addition does not automatically lead to Penalty, more particulars where two opinions on the same facts possible. (j) CIT vs. PMP Soundara Pandian & Bros. - 140 ITR 385(Mad) The Madras High Court held that - addition towards unexplained cash credit on agreed basis - in favour of assessee. (k) Roshan Lal…

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 599/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…vs. ITO-48 taxman.com - 28 ITR(Trib) 523(Ahd.) Penalty U/s 271(l)(c) cannot be imposed merely on ground that there were defects in accounts books of assessee and flat rate of Profit is applied to arrive gross Profit. (i) CIT vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation - 166 ITR 29 (Cal) The Calcutta High Court held that mere addition does not automatically lead to Penalty, more particulars where two opinions on the same facts possible. (j) CIT vs. PMP Soundara Pandian & Bros. - 140 ITR 385(Mad) The Madras High Court held that - addition towards unexplained cash credit on agreed basis - in favour of assessee. (k) Roshan Lal…

VANITA H. ALIMCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 506/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Mrs. Vanita H. Alimchandani Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2) C/O. M.R. Sharma & Co. Piramal Chambers E-8, Poonam Darshan Mumbai 400012 Vs. Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400093 Pan – Agypa7278C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R. LakshminarayanFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…assessment proceedings without appreciating that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceeding and in any case CIT (A) order has not become final. 6. The learned CIT (A) failed to note that as held by Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Calcutta Corp. 166 ITR 29 that where two opinions are possible, penalty is not justified. 7. It is prayed that penalty of Rs. 86,96,280/- levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(C) may be deleted. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4.1 At the outset of the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for…

AGARWAL DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1166/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

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

…ILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 (CAL.) v. CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI LTD. 288 ITR 585 (DEL.) 6 vi. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS. ITO 112 ITR 592 (CAL.) vii. CIT. VS. AMAR NATH230 ITR 619 (ALL.) viii. CIT. VS. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPN. 166 ITR 29 (CAL.) ix. CIT VS. LOTUS TRANS TRA VELS (P) LTD.177 TAXMAN37 (DEL.) Thus, the disallowance of claim of deduction is not sufficient for imposition of penalty. 7. The Ld. AR further submitted in respect of disallowance of expenses paid in cash that Out of total Misc. Expenses of Rs. 84,793/-, the cash expenses of Rs. 39,000/- disallowed on the gr…