Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125/(2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b) National Taxtiles v. CIT

114 Taxmann 203High Court2001#5340 most cited

What is Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125/(2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b) National Taxtiles v. CIT authority for?

An order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the Assessing Officer does not make a specific finding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. The penalty is not leviable in cases of mere disallowance or a bonafide claim.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balbir Singh · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · inaccurate particulars of income · concealment of income · Assessing Officer finding · bonafide claim · disallowance

Also reported as

249 ITR 124

Issues it is cited on

unexplained cash creditsection 68section 143section 14companysection 143(3)total incomedocument

Judgments citing Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125/(2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b) National Taxtiles v. CIT

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2001-02 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Vs. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 312, G-1&2, Delhi Blue Apartment, C.R. Building, New Delhi 2, Factor Road, Safdarjung, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACE5173F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Date of hearing: 02.11.2015 Date of pronouncement: 04.11.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.: The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed again…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. T.D.T. Copper Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2411/DEL/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2000-01 Acit, Circle-16(1), Vs. M/S T.D.T. Copper Ltd, New Delhi 7-Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (Pan:Aaact1028N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Satyajit, Ca Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Arise Out Of The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In Ita No. 1242 Of 2008, Dated 14Th December, 2009 Whereby The Earlier Order Of This Tribunal Dated 17Th January, 2008 Was Set Aside. The Revenue Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi, Dated 21St April, 2006 For The Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2000-01 On 29.11.2000, Disclosing A Loss Of Rs. 11,97,57,110/-. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & The Assessment Came To Be Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Satyajit, CA
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 ACIT, Circle-16(1), Vs. M/s T.D.T. Copper Ltd, New Delhi 7-Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (PAN:AAACT1028N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Respondent by : S/sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Satyajit, CA Date of hearing: 09.09.2015 Date of pronouncement: 23.09.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.: This appeal arise out of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 1242 of 2008, dated 14th December, 2009…