CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 316High Court2010#452 most cited

What is CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

No penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars when additions or disallowances to income are based purely on estimation, without concrete evidence. The revenue must demonstrate actual concealment, not just an estimated addition.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. · 322 ITR 316 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · estimated addition · no penalty on estimated addition · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · quantum addition estimation · Delhi High Court · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 274Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271asection 274penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)section 271section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

MOHD GULZAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-DEL-W-(67)(92), DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 6188/Del/2025 appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6189/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Mohd. Ehtesham, CA & Sh. Abhinav Jijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pramod KumAR, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, as aforesaid, hence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) dated 25.01.2010 wherein, the Court has observed in the Heads Notes as under:- “Where profit was estimated after rejection of books and in quantum appeal substantial relief was given by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified (in favour of assessee]” 10.1…

MOHD GULZAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-DEL-W-(67)(92), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, ITA No. 6188/Del/2025 appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Mohd. Ehtesham, CA & Sh. Abhinav Jijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pramod KumAR, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, as aforesaid, hence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) dated 25.01.2010 wherein, the Court has observed in the Heads Notes as under:- “Where profit was estimated after rejection of books and in quantum appeal substantial relief was given by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified (in favour of assessee]” 10.1…

ETESH P. JAIN(KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1) , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN (KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN(HUF),THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of…

DEEPAK GOLCHA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-43(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed in very terms

ITA 4071/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

…be quashed as against quantum Revenue does not have any concrete evidence otherwise addition could not have been made on estimation. In support of the same Learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions in the cases of – - CIT v. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi HC); - Harigopal Singh v. CIT (P&H); - Vishnu Tambi v. DCIT (ITAT Jaipur); - Kamlesh Gupta v. DCIT (ITAT) 4. On the other hand, Learned DR relied on the order passed by the authorities below. 5. The facts as narrated herein above have duly been considered by us and it appears from the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer that t…

VENKATESHWARA RAO DALAPATHIRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 274

…70A of the Act is not leviable. In this regard, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs., Subhash Trading Co. (supra) and also decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Aero Traders Private Limited [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Del.). Therefore, he submitted that, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) should be deleted. 10 ITA.No.988/Hyd./2025 7. Sri Madan Mohan Meena, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the Order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, it is a clear case of under- reporting of income, whic…

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-2015 to 2016-2017) Shree Mangalam Aluminium IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:ABKFS3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar Appearances by: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the a…

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 487/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-2015 to 2016-2017) Shree Mangalam Aluminium IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:ABKFS3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar Appearances by: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the a…

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 486/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-2015 to 2016-2017) Shree Mangalam Aluminium IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. Nos. 486 to 488/PAT/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:ABKFS3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar Appearances by: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the a…

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…l that the quantification of the alleged concealment/inaccurate particulars is only an estimate and it is settled law that penalty is not attracted on estimated additions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CTT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is Assessment year 2005-06 determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Compa…

SHOBHA RAM SHARMA,MATHURA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 111/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shobha Ram Sharma, Vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(3)(1), Barhan Kalan, Mathura. Mathura PAN : AOBPS2246F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2025 ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)-AGRA-1/10058…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…onstruction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 419/222 Taxman 167/362 ITR 609 (Allahabad) (c) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad) (d) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) 13. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act looking into the instant facts. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. 13. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08/…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…onstruction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 419/222 Taxman 167/362 ITR 609 (Allahabad) (c) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad) (d) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) 13. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act looking into the instant facts. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. 13. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08/…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

ITA 774/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253Section 68

…cannot bind the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Vasantlal & Co. Vs CIT 45 ITR 206. He also relied upon two decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, namely; CIT Vs Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 326 and CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that document is to be read as a whole. He took us through the document which is being reproduced by the CIT(A) at page 20 of the impugned order. He & C.O. 07/CHD/2024 A.Y.2019-20 20 pointed out that after the first entry exhibiting opening bal…

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…[2020] 117 taxmann.com 490 (Rajkot Tribunal) (b) CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd. (2014) 42 Txmann.com 419 (Allahabad HC) (c) CIT-II Lucknow V/s Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad) (d) CIT Vs Aero Traders (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi HC) In view of aforesaid premises drawn up by us (supra) we are of the considered view that since quantum assessment order was based on application of estimated rate of NP @ 24.50% which was found to be applicable ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 12 and that same was accepted by the Revenue the charge of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of…

MANOJ SHANTILAL METHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 27(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan GadaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…e Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [258 ITR 85] and also the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316], wherein the Hon‟ble High Courts have held that the estimate of profit on the 3 Manoj Shantilal Mehta turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In the instant case, the addition has been made on estimated basis. Accordingly, following the above said dec…

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…stries, 44 taxmann.com 9(Rajasthan) ITA No. 1661 & 1660/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas Shah 11. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) 12. CIT vs. Reliance Petro products P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aero Traders(P.) Ltd., 322 ITR 316, Delhi HC. 14. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 15. CIT vs. SSP. Ltd. 328 ITR 643 (P & H.) 16. CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal 329 ITR 330(Calcutta) 17. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 171 Taxman 320 (Punajb & Haryana) 18. Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 125 Taxman 242 (Punjab & Hary…

MANOJ SHANTILAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 27(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5636/MUM/2024[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Manoj Shantilal Mehta, Income Tax Officer, B-504, Rajshree Residency, Ward-27(2)(2), Mavroji Cross Lane, Vs. 4Th Floor, Ghatkopar (West), Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. Pan : Acjpm8523H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Gada For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Ketan GadaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…the Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Courtin the case ofHarigopal Singh vs. CIT [258 ITR 85] and also the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316], wherein the Hon‟ble High Courts have held that the estimate of profit on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act may be deleted. 4. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the reco…

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…pport of his arguments relied upon various case laws: i. CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Prem Dass (No. 2) (2001) 248 ITR 237 (P&H) iii. CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Genning 359 ITR 562 (Kar.) iv. CIT v. Aerotraders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) v. CIT v. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) vi. ACIT v. Shivam Projects 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 8. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uphold the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particula…

Showing 1–20 of 202 · Page 1 of 11

...