271(1)(c). Equest India (P) Ltd. v. ITO

136 TTJ 574Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#19124 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing 271(1)(c). Equest India (P) Ltd. v. ITO

SH. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 939/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…im, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, 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. Equest India (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2011) 136 TTJ 574/48 DTR 386 (Mum.) (Trib.) Merely because the assessee has a different perception of the situation than the AO, even though, in the ultimate analysis, the stand of the AO is to be upheld, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars. The admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted…

BRIGHT METAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

…nd was treated as a speculative loss, it was only a change of sub-head of 5 ITA 1093/JP/2018_ Bright Metals I Ltd. Vs ACIT loss and not furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income invoking penal provision u/s 271(1)(c). Equest India (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2011) 136 TTJ 574/48 DTR 386 (Mum.) (Trib.) Merely because the assessee has a different perception of the situation than the AO, even though. in the ultimate analysis, the stand of the AO is to be upheld, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars. The admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted…

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ ACIT, Central Circle-20 M/s. Ankur Drugs & R.No. 402, Pharma Ltd., 4t h floor, 29t h Floor, Lotus Business v. Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Andheri Link Road, M.K Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai- 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCA2062M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena, C…

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…egarding taxability of assessable income do not justify levy of penalty. Reliance in this regard is placed on Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 23 OTR 158 (SC), lOBI v. OCIT 42 SOT 325, Equest India P Ltd 136 TTJ 574, Strides Arcolab Ltd 40 SOT 398, Zycus Infotech P Ltd 17 SOT 310. 3.14 It is also a settled law that when no penalty has been levied on similar facts and similar additions made in earlier years, no penalty can be levied in subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sood Harvester 304 ITR 279 (P&H) and Navjeevan Oil Mills 252 ITR 417 (…