CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 316High Court2010#455 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 366,005 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.

Rajesh Mundhra, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - III, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/KOL/2013[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. 10. Now, we may refer to the decisions relied on by the learned AR. Let us examine the decision rendered by the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Aero Traders(P) Ltd reported in 322 ITR 316, wherein the ITA No.2526/Kol/13 Rajesh Mundhra 5 Honourable High Court upheld the finding arrived by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the addition was made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit, the relevant finding of the Honourable High Court is reproduced herein below: 6. Aggrieved…

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7563/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Private Limited, Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aadca 9890L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss by way of any evidence as the relevant records were seized and were…

Kaycee Shares Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Kaycee Shares Broking Pvt. Ltd. Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aacck 7839A ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss by way of any evidence as the relevant records were seized and were…

Deliben Seth, Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5255/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazsmt. Deliben Seth Acit, Central Circle -13 304/B, Pratiksha Tower Old Cgo Building Annex Vs. R.S. Nimkar Marg 11Th Floor, M.K. Road Mumbai 400008 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Afnpj6262P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Om Ningshen
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(2015) 203 Taxman 313 (Guj) (HC) (v) Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj) (HC) (vi) Vijay Kumar Jain (2010 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) (vii) Vikram Plastics (2012) 136 ITD 273 (Ahd) (TM) (viii) Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) (HC) 3.3.1 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the sustaining of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained jewellery of `1,93,424/-. According to the learned D.R., in the course of search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act in the case of…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7570/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7569/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7568/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7567/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7566/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7564/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…ate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company 5 & ITA 7566-7570/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10 had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss b…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he estimate of household expenses, we find that the AO simply made an estimate of household expenses without there being any evidence backing such an estimate, which has been partly accepted. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by several other High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). As the penalty on account of…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he estimate of household expenses, we find that the AO simply made an estimate of household expenses without there being any evidence backing such an estimate, which has been partly accepted. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by several other High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). As the penalty on account of…

Mukesh Choksi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC (46), Mumbai

ITA 996/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण ,मुंबई मुंबई ” ई “खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी .एन ."साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-CC-46 Room No.659, 6th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv CHS Ltd., 6th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mu…

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

ITA 695/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण ,मुंबई मुंबई ” ई “खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी .एन ."साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-CC-46 Room No.659, 6th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv CHS Ltd., 6th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mu…

M/S. Zamindara Timber Traders, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2964/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Jain &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…AO, which again stood reduced by the tribunal. It is a settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents inclu…

M/S. Monika Telecom Pipes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Monika Telecom Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 9Th Km Stone, Circle-2, Bhopa Road, Muzzarfarnagar. Muzzarfarnagar, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri P. Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Damkanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2009-10 Monika Telecom Pipes Pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT, 9th KM Stone, Circle-2, Bhopa Road, Muzzarfarnagar. Muzzarfarnagar, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Shri P. Damkanunjna, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.01.2016 Date of pronouncement: 30.03.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.09.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Muzaffarnagar wherein…

Nirmal Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6696/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ion of Rs.7.50 lac, we find that this addition has resulted on estimation of income at 5% on estimated sales of Rs.1.50 crore. Except that there is no other basis for imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has upheld the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Ho…

Sh. Nirmal Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6645/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ion of Rs.7.50 lac, we find that this addition has resulted on estimation of income at 5% on estimated sales of Rs.1.50 crore. Except that there is no other basis for imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has upheld the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Ho…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6768/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)

…8,559 sustained by the ld. CIT(A) has been deleted by the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2001-02 in I.T.A. No. 4140/Del/2010 vide order dated 22.9.2014. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 (Del) holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on estimated income. 8. Ld. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 9. Considering the above submission that the trading addition was made on estimate basis and another addition of Rs.28,599 made on account of unconfirmed sundry credito…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6767/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)

…8,559 sustained by the ld. CIT(A) has been deleted by the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2001-02 in I.T.A. No. 4140/Del/2010 vide order dated 22.9.2014. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 (Del) holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on estimated income. 8. Ld. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 9. Considering the above submission that the trading addition was made on estimate basis and another addition of Rs.28,599 made on account of unconfirmed sundry credito…