Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai v. VIP Industries Ltd.

30 SOT 254Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#20499 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai v. VIP Industries Ltd.

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)

…at disallowance of expenditure/deduction cannot automatically lead to penalty [CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC)] ; that mere confirmation of disallowance in quantum appeal cannot invite penalty [ACIT v. VIP Industries Ltd. [2009] 30 SOT 254 (Mumbai)] ; that simply because the assessee did not challenge the addition/disallowance in quantum appeal cannot lead to penalty [CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC), Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No. 4862/Del/2013 (Delhi-Trib)]; 7 M/s Dorf-Detal Chemical ITA Nos. 4683 & 4682/Mum/2017…

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere the addition is confirmed, the penalty shall follow automatically. This view is fortified by the decision of coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai. v. VIP Industries Ltd., [2009] 30 SOT 254 (Mumbai) In the case referred above the coordinate bench of ITAT held as under: “Therefore, it would be clear that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings and, hence, it becomes amply clear that any addition made does not automatically lead to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the penalty proceedin…

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere the addition is confirmed, the penalty shall follow automatically. This view is fortified by the decision of coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai. v. VIP Industries Ltd., [2009] 30 SOT 254 (Mumbai) In the case referred above the coordinate bench of ITAT held as under: “Therefore, it would be clear that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings and, hence, it becomes amply clear that any addition made does not automatically lead to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the penalty proceedin…

DIGITAL ELECTRONICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5451/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…inaccurate particulars. Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the cases of CITvs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC) ; CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. [2003] 133 Taxman 320 (Raj.), ACIT vs. VIP Industries [2009] 30 SOT 254 (Mum.); Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2010] 42 SOT 325 (Mum.). 6. The ld. DR supports the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 70,93,850/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee-company has cred…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 32, Mumbai v. VIP Industries Ltd. (30 SOT 254) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax