Bombay Hardware. Syndicate v. CIT

114 ITR 586High Court1978#10089 most cited

What is Bombay Hardware. Syndicate v. CIT authority for?

Penalty cannot be levied for additions sustained on an estimate basis. The penalty provisions apply even when assessments are made on an estimate.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bombay Hardware Syndicate · CIT · 114 ITR 586 · penalty · estimate basis · additions sustained · assessment procedure · penalty provision

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Bombay Hardware. Syndicate v. CIT

ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Rev

ITA 4056/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-13(1)(1), P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar Vs. Churchgate, Vishweshwar Nagar Road, Off Mumbai-400020. Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcp 9320 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: 24/09/2024
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Bombay Hardware Syndicate v CIT 114 ITR 586 (Mad) and CIT v P Bombay Hardware Syndicate v CIT 114 ITR 586 (Mad) Bombay Hardware Syndicate v CIT 114 ITR 586 (Mad) Rojes [2013] 31 taxmann.com 253 (Mad) wherein it is held that no [2013] 31 taxmann.com 253 (Mad) wherein it is held that no [2013] 31 taxmann.com 253 (Mad) wherein it is held that no penalty could be levied lty could be levied for…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…s. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As pointed out in CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) at page 195 itself, the "uniform view" taken by this court is that the "penalty provision has been applied even in cases where assessment is made on the basis of an estimate". In that decisi…

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…2] 258 ITR 85 (P&H), in case of CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co.[2002] 254 ITR 191 (P&H), in case of CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All), in case of J. A. Trivedi Bros. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 705 (MP) and in case of Bombay Hardware Syndicate v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad). 35. It was finally submitted that it is clear that penalty has been imposed without considering the argument made before the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), further, as demonstrated hereinbefore basic ingredients of imposing penalty u/s 271AAB i.e. any income represented by certain type of assets is missing in the instant case. The penalty provision…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [PAN : AQSPK 9358H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) S.P. No.22/Coch/2018 (Arsg. out of ITA No. 207/coch/2018) Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [PAN : AQSPK…

Bombay Hardware. Syndicate v. CIT (114 ITR 586) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax