2 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT v. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd.

349 ITR 112High Court2012#6650 most cited

What is 2 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT v. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty cannot be imposed for additions made on debatable issues. This applies when the claim for deduction is based on a dispute or differing interpretations of tax law.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · debatable issues · inadmissible claim · inaccurate particulars · additions on dispute

Judgments citing 2 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT v. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd.

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

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

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

…urnish inaccurate particulars / concealment of income. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the following case laws in which it had been similarly held, - “i. Devsons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 8 taxmann.com 87 ii. Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 iii. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 36 taxmann.com 75 iv. CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 216 taxman 186 v. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 36 DTR 449 vi. Principal Commissioner of Income tax vs. E-City Investments & Holdings Company (P.) Ltd., [2022] 144 tax…

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Minerals Managements Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5478/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ootings to stand at all. The facts of that case cannot be compared with the present case. The said decision has also been dealt/ distinguished in the following case laws rendered by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court: -Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 349 ITR 112 -Kanchenjunga Advertising (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 340 ITR 595 - CIT v. Societex: 259 CTR 325 - CIT v. Kas Movie (P) Ltd.: 207 Taxman 183 - CIT v. Madhushree Gupta: 216 Taxman 65 (Mag.) Considering the entirety of facts and legal position discussed above, penalty levied qua disallowance of depreciation and interest stands deleted.” 2.4 However Ld. CIT(A…

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

…22ITR 158] (SC) b) CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi HC) c) Devsons Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT(A) [2011] 196 TAXMAN 21 (Delhi HC) d) CIT Vs. Bacardi Martini (2007) (288 ITR 585) (Delhi. 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)…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/AHD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat Ahmedabad Vide Ita No. 3289/Ahd/2002 & 3343/Ahd/2002. Addition On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Depb For The Purpose Of Rs.11,41,480 Deduction U/S.80Ia Deduction U/S.115Jb(2) In Respect Of Book Losses Of Pradeep Drug Rs.3, 39,12,399

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(16)Section 274Section 80I

…tive, it has been held that the penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on debatable issues. A few of such decisions are as under:- a) Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 235 CTR 209 (Del.) b) Karan Raghav Export Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Del.) c) Sivananda Steels Ltd. 256 ITR 683 (Mad.) In view of the above facts and legal position, thus I hold that no penalty is imposable in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA on profit arising from DEPB. 4.3. Ground No. 4 pertains to disallowance of claim of losses reduced from the book profit computed u/s. 115JB pertaining to Prade…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6458/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajnit Singh, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…following judgements: (ii) Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Delhi) (iii) CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. [2011] 329 ITR 572 (Delhi) (iv) CIT v. Societex [2013] 212 Taxman 73 (Delhi) (Mag.) (v) Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) (Mag.) 6. Moreover, the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 does not specify the limb under which the penalty was levied. In this regard, it is submitted that it is a well settled law, the AO, while issuing notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act, has to mention as to under which limb of the Act he is levying penalty on the assessee…

Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 1093/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin -CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1093/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-17(3)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Terraforce Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5129/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…lls Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 705, CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Devsons P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 329 ITR 483 (Delhi) and Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) to reach the conclusion on facts that merely a wrong claim of deduction does not amount to furnish of inaccurate particulars. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances in this matter, the Ld. CIT (A) reached the conclusion that it’s a case where the assessee made a bona fide claim which was not found acceptable to the AO but w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ripe Components Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6096/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)

…claimed any deduction/depreciation/exemption, it is for the revenue authorities to examine if the same is not sustainable. 11. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty by relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited as Karan Raghav Exports Pvt. Ltd. – 349 ITR 112 and CIT vs. Pradeep Agency – 349 ITR 470, as relied upon by the assessee. Since the penalty in this case has been levied merely for the reason that the assessee has claimed inadmissible depreciation on temporary structure, the provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Pet…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…Sidhartha Enterprises (P & H High Court) 288ITR 670, CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 359 ITR 101, CIT vs. DCM Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi HC) >- 335 ITR 558, CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (P&H High Court) >- 349 ITR 112, Karan Raghav Export P Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 293 ITR 524, CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Madras H.C.). >- 352 ITR 394, CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. ( P &H High Court) >- 347 ITR 478, CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. ( P &H High Court). >- 329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 377 ITR 417…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…duction u/s 10A on the export profit. 1. CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (P&H) 4. Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Del) 5. CIT vs. EICON International (13) Ltd. 166 Taxman 12 (Del) 6. CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd. 177 Taxman 37 (Del) 7. CIT vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd. 211 CTR 543 (Del) 8. CIT vs. Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. 326 ITR 429 (P&H) 9. Geeta Prints (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 247 CTR 620 (Guj.) Keeping in view the facts and law discussed supra, the fi…

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)

…2 ITR 158 (SC) (ii). ShervanJ .Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Delhi) . (iii). CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. [2011] 329 ITR 572 (Delhi) (iv). CIT v. Societex [2013] 212 Taxman 73 (Delhi) (Mag.) (v). Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) (Mag.) 6.4 The ld. AR further submitted that it is well established principle of law that penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings, and the consideration in penalty proceedings are distinct from the merits under quantum proceedings. It is submitted that it has been held that penalty cannot be an automat…

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

…the penalty was otherwise also not leviable – CIT vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. 322 ITR 73 (P&H), CIT ITA No. 2461/D/15 Page 3 of 11 Chander Pal Aggarwal vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Delhi High Court), CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.), CIT vs. Mata Pd. 278 ITR 354 (All), VIP Industries vs. ACIT 21 DTR 153 (Mum.) and Kanbay Software India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 31 SOT (Pune). The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed deserves to be cancelled. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the quantum of penalty imposed should…

M/S. Greenfields Public School Society, Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6263/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(12)(c)

…329 ITR 572 (Del.); iv) M. S. Bindra & Sons P. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 125 (Del.); v) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. s DCIT (2012), 14 ITR (Trib), (Del.); vi) CI Vs Mahavir Irrigation P. Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 241 (Del.; and vii) Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2012), 349 ITR 112 (Del.) 3.1 Ld. A.R. submitted that the application dated 31.10.2006 was rejected by the DIT (Exemption) vide order dated 06.07.2009 which was subsequently granted by DIT (Exemption) w.e.f. Assessment Year 2006-07, due to the directions of this Tribunal. Ld. A.R. submitted that no penalty can be levied as the claim of the assessee is 5 I.T.A.No.62…

M/S. Snowhite Stores Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5770/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…e to the following judicial pronouncements: • Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 483 (Del) • CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) • CIT vs. Hindustan Computers Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 88 (All.) • Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 112 (Del) • CIT v. Mahavir Irrigation Pvt. Ltd., 347 ITR 241 (Del) 4.1 As regards the difference in stock valuation, the details submitted to the bank are valued at MRP for some of the items, whereas the valuation of stocks as per books of accounts were done on the basis of regularly followed method of accounting i.e. 'cost or market value whicheve…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2627/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars”. 7. The Delhi High Court in the case of Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112/21 taxmann.com 8/[2013] 212 Taxman 55 (Mag.) has held that claim made by the assessee might have been rejected, but it would not be said that claim was not plausible or legally tenable and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5 8. In the case of CIT v. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. [2013] 31 ta…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Arcotech Ltd (Formerly Sks Ltd.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…2013:DHC:4611-DB ITA No. 71/2013 Page 16 of 21 Income Tax, (2011) 329 ITR 572 Delhi, Karan Raghav Exports versus CIT, (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Delhi), CIT versus Zoom Communication Private Limited, (2010) 327 ITR 510(Delhi). One cannot be oblivious to divergent views on legal interpretation of tax provisions and that uniformity and consistency of opinion on aspects of law may not be possible. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed because an assessee has taken a particular legal s…

Shervani Hospitalities Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…een accepted. (See CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. 2010 322 ITR 158 (SC), CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 2011 329 ITR 572 (Del.), CIT vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2011 decided on 19.07.2012, by this Court). In Karan Raghav Exports vs. CIT (2012)349 ITR 112(Del.), it has been observed as under:- “14. On the second aspect, we record that a wrong deduction claimed can amount to furnishing of incorrect particulars. However, that is not the issue 2013:DHC:2816-DB ITA 804/2011 Page 17 of 21 in question. The issue in…

2 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT v. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. (349 ITR 112) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax