Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT

290 ITR 172High Court2007#24395 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. GYANCHAND PODDAR HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…and also in the second round when proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated. Thus, technically speaking this is not a case where the facts were hidden from the assessing authority. Thus, following the case of Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. reported in 290 ITR 172 (Kar), it deserves to be held that there was no conscious or deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee. Following the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC), it deserves to be held that penalty will not ordinarily be imposed until and unless the assessee either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of condu…

M/S. RASHI WEARS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4327/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 Rashi Wears Pvt.Ltd. Addl.CIT D 972, New Friends Colony vs. Range XV New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACR 4887 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.Rahul Kampani, CA Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 22nd November, 2017 Date of Pronouncement 29th November, 2017 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present penalty appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 13/06/14 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-18, New Delhi for assessm…

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2012[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri NavinVerma, ACA

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…d deduction u/s.80IA and 80IB, which was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c) as the same cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the revenue refuses to accept the claim of the assessee and treated the same the same as assessee's income, it cannot be said that the assessee hasconcealed or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The Hon'ble Court further observed that in order to justify the levy of pe…