Bhadra Advancing Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

219 CTR 447High Court2008#8478 most cited
13

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

Judgments citing Bhadra Advancing Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…292 ITR 11 (SC) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT v) 190 Taxman 157 (Del) CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Ltd. vi) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation vii) 219 ITR 267 (Del) CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Limited viii) 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB) CIT V. H. Abdul Bakshi ix) 219 CTR 447 (Kar) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd. v. ACIT x) 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed in 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal "It is well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assesse…

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6422/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…evised return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal)…

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…vised return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal)…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6886/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6883/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6882/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6881/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6880 & 6881/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 196, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: AACCR9776R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885, 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sanjeev Jain, 196, Ram vs. DCIT, Central Circle Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad. PAN: ACFPJ3817P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by Sh. Kapil Go…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…d return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…d return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…d return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (…