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.

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 619/AHD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

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…

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…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…

Jaipur Gem Crafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 327/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 274

…parties at length I found that it is an undisputed fact that the additions in the present case were made on estimation bases therefore as per the decision in the case of CIT 5 JAIPUR GEM CRAFTS VS ITO, WARD 5 (1), JAIPUR versus Arrow traders Private Limited 322 ITR 316 the court has held that no penalty under section 271(1)( c) can be imposed where income is determined on estimate and similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh vs CIT reported in 258 ITR85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 IT…

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…levying penalty there against clearly does not arise, as there is no absolute finding as to the assessee having actually concealed his income. - ITO vs. Bombaywala Readymade Stores (2015) 55 taxmann.com 258 Gujarat HC; - CIT vs. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 - Delhi HC; - CIT vs. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar- (2008) 214 CTR 355-Allahabad HC; - Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT-ITA No.3368/AHD/2008-Ahmedabad ITAT: - ETCO Profiles (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 470 – Mumbai- ITAT - Narayan Singh J. Deora Vs. ACIT-ITA No.5895/Mum/2010-Mumbai ITAT - ACIT Vs. Allied Construction – (2008) 26 SOT 50 – Delhi…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…(c) of the I.T. Act. Against the levy of penalty in the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of P & H high Court in case of CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 taxmann.com 68 and Delhi HC in case of CIT v. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 316, deleted the penalty holding that percentage completion method is based on estimation of profit and on that penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the income on the advances received from the customer, as per the guidelines of ICAI, the assessee was required to disclose the profit…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Viskahapatnam vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, BHPV Post Visakhapatnam NH-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAJCS7398P] (अपीलार्थी…

Shivnandan Prasad & Sons, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 854/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…self does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Similar view has been taken 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 Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 7. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the net profit by rejecting books of accounts and estimation of net pro…

Shivnandan Prasad & Sons, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…self does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Similar view has been taken 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 Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 7. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the net profit by rejecting books of accounts and estimation of net pro…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…has resulted on Uma Mandal vs. ITO estimation of income at 5% on estimated sales ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/De1/2014 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 Hon'b…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…has resulted on Uma Mandal vs. ITO estimation of income at 5% on estimated sales ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/De1/2014 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 Hon'b…

ITO -34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manoj Dineshchandra Chitaliya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

…) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis.” 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316] wherein the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 10. Respectfully following the above decisions and in the given case also, the income of the assessee is estimated on the value of…

Gd Foods and Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the penalty in toto

ITA 424/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.423 & 424/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. G.D Foods and Manufacturing The ACIT, Centre Circle 26, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd., 110055 Plot No. 14, Block-B, Community vs. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 PAN AAACG 9952 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv. Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA For Assessee : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Final Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA…

Gd Foods and Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the penalty in toto

ITA 423/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.423 & 424/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. G.D Foods and Manufacturing The ACIT, Centre Circle 26, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd., 110055 Plot No. 14, Block-B, Community vs. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 PAN AAACG 9952 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv. Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA For Assessee : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Final Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the penalty in toto

ITA 1814/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.423 & 424/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. G.D Foods and Manufacturing The ACIT, Centre Circle 26, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd., 110055 Plot No. 14, Block-B, Community vs. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 PAN AAACG 9952 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ajay Wadwa, Adv. Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA For Assessee : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Final Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA…

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis.” 14. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316] wherein the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 15. In the case on hand the Ld.CIT(A) has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being…

M/S. Metal Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1139/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1139/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S. Metal Traders, B/307, E/3, Highway Park, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Aagfm-3851-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 33(2)(3), C-12, 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…sustainable are as under:- (i) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580(Raj); (ii) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H; (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj); (iv) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramnarain And Company vs. ACIT (supra), ACIT vs. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd.(supra) and ACIT vs. M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd. by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts have held that no penalty can be initiated where the addition is made on esti…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1079/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1074/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1073/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1075/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 1076/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1077/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 1078/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1079/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Gupta, Vs. DCIT, C-4, Maharani Bagh, Near Ashrak, New Central Circle-1, Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG9838M Assessee by : Sh. Nee…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1078/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1074/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1073/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1075/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 1076/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1077/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 1078/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1079/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Gupta, Vs. DCIT, C-4, Maharani Bagh, Near Ashrak, New Central Circle-1, Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG9838M Assessee by : Sh. Nee…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1074/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1073/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1075/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 1076/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1077/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 1078/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1079/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Gupta, Vs. DCIT, C-4, Maharani Bagh, Near Ashrak, New Central Circle-1, Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG9838M Assessee by : Sh. Nee…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1076/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1074/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1073/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1075/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 1076/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1077/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 1078/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1079/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Gupta, Vs. DCIT, C-4, Maharani Bagh, Near Ashrak, New Central Circle-1, Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG9838M Assessee by : Sh. Nee…