271(1)(c) of the Act. In Laxmi Jewellery v. CIT

171 ITR 649High Court1988#23079 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 271(1)(c) of the Act. In Laxmi Jewellery v. CIT

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…ce to the promise made under the letter dt. 25.02.2014. We submit that non-filing of appeal should not be constructed to mean that the addition is correct by law. (ii) On this issue, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Laxmi Jewellery - vs-CIT, 171 ITR 649 (AP) wherein the Hon. Court has held that the mere fact that the assessee did not appeal against the assessment would not indicate that It has accepted the correctness of the addition. It is further submitted that appellant pursuant to levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) has preferred appeal against the quantum addition also. 7. That the full facts ha…

M/S Shiv Kumar Sushil Kumar Tea Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kailash Mangal (Addl.CIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80ASection 80ISection 80J

…eedings. Levy of penalty is not a necessary concomitant of assessment proceedings. Mere fact that disallowance has been made and upheld in appeal, does not justify the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In Laxmi Jewellery vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 649 (AP), it was held that the finding given in assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax is not conclusive, and the assessee may establish his case during penalty proceedings even though addition made in assessment has been accepted. They referred to CIT v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. (1986) 160 ITR 94 (AP) that penalty proceedings are en…

Sainy Heavy Elect & Engg. Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8488/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. Ravinder Sindhu

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

…3] 84 ITD 19 (Pune), submitted that in the absence of for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be an element of dishonesty on the part of the assessee which is not there in the present case. Further placing reliance on the cases Laxmi Jewellery vs. CIT 171 ITR 649(AP), ITO vs. Ambica Agencies 50 ITD 31 and CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.218 ITR 267 (Del) submitted that the findings of assessment proceedings are not conclusive for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. And the assessee may establish its case during penalty proceedings also. 4. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) rel…