CIT(A) v. Kalindi Rail Nirmaan Engineering Ltd (Delhi)

365 ITR 304High Court2014#24680 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10AA Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. Kalindi Rail Nirmaan Engineering Ltd (Delhi)

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has decided similar issue in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engineering Limited reported as [2014] 51 taxmann. com 523 (Delhi)/[2014] 365 ITR 304 (Delhi)[15-04-2014]. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a company. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, return of income was filed on 29.11.2012 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2013. In the said Assessment Order, addition was made of Rs.6,39,42,814/- on accoun…

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…o estoppel in law, as regards levy of penalty, even in case where addition was made on an estimate basis. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 304 (Del) (ii). CIT Vs. Smt. CHandrakanta (1994) 205 ITR 607 (MP) (iii). Addl. CIT Vs. Lakshmi Industries & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 492 (All) (iv). CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swaru…

Surender Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…ined in appeal by the CIT(A). In appeal, the decision was confirmed rejecting the sole submission of the assessee that penalty in an estimated addition cannot be levied. Reliance was placed upon CIT(A) vs Kalindi Rail Nirmaan Engineering Ltd (Delhi) [2014] 365 ITR 304. On a consideration of the submissions of the parties before the Bench, I am of the view that the penalty imposed upon the assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. A perusal of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings evidences that the assessee accepting its Surender Singh…