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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.?

202 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 316), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 250, Section 274, Section 147.

CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 316)

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

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1075/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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 1074/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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 1073/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR

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

…Timber P. Ltd position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) wherein it has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the asse…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR

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

…Timber P. Ltd position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) wherein it has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the asse…

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 126/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Section 271

…nt of cash deposit of Rs. 4,30,010/- is deleted. The appellant had raised an additional ground of appeal regarding mated income of Rs. 4,30,000/- which is thus rejected.” 12. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed when the income is determined on estimate basis in following manners:- “5. Against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the penalty imposed vide order dt. 7th Sept., 2007, holding that the addition made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit…

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…that this addition has resulted on 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…

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…that this addition has resulted on 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…

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…ed sales ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/De1/2014 of 6 Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma. Rs.1.50 crore. Except that there is no other basis for imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble Delhi High ITA No. 38/JP/2018 Shahnaz Khanam vs. ITO 9 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…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…that this addition has resulted on 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…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…stimate basis, at the outset, cannot lead to conclusion of concealment and no penalty is liable to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the estimation was based on an estimation of profit and such estimation was reduced by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ca…

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

…o cases where income of the assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis” 6. We would also like to place our reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT v/s Subhash Trading Company (Guj), CIT v/s Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 (Del) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai v/s Selvaraj and Anthony Muthu Chettiar ITA no. 4642/Mum/2019 which has also taken a similar view. 7. From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the assessee has furnished the details pertaining to the impugned purchases in its return of income and has al…

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…eleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) qua the estimated additions or estimated disallowances. Hence, it would be pertinent to refer to the ratio of the following. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.)] has held as under: “6. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the revenue, came to the conclusion that the CIT(A) had taken the correct decision in deleting the penalty. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 04.12.2008 is as follow…

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…f the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty because no penalty, for concealment can be levied on the income which has been assessed on estimate basis. Reference made to (a) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Del), (b) CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P & H), (c) CIT vs. Whiteline Chemicals [2014] 360 ITR 385 (Guj), (d) Shri Radhey Shyam vs. ITO [ITA No. 5268/Del/2015 decided on 31/10/2017 by ITAT Delhi]; 7. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the Order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad inasmuch as the Order dated 02-…

Artmica Laminates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned penalty order is set aside

ITA 6615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaartmica Laminates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M.K. Bhatt & Co, 302, Ward-3(2), Triveni Complex, E-10-12, New Delhi Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aqcpk7351E

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed u/s 144 on the basis of estimate of profits therefore, there can be no case of concealment of income or submitting inaccurate particulars. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). 6. On the other hand the ld Sr. DR submitted that in the assessment order the AO had observed specifically in para No. 7 that there was concealment of income. It was submitted, in the penalty order also the ld AO had mentioned that there was concealment of income and accordingly he defended the orders of the ld Tax Authorities below. 7.…

CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

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

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

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

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

Artmica Laminates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), New Delhi