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 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 366,339 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 250 Section 274 Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income section 271a section 274 penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271(1)levy of penalty section 271(1)(c)section 271 section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Knight Riders Sorts P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 & 7 of appeal are allowed

ITA 5092/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande (AR)For Respondent: Shri Padmapani Bora (DR)

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

…y in view of the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Denandas Perumal & Co. (140 ITR 943) P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) and Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 316). AO raised the addition of 50% in the year by not admitting the claim of Assessee so the penalty is not leviable in this case also because there is no concealment of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we also find support of law mentioned above. Moreover, we noticed that the tax chargeable in the A.Y.2010…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5337/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 1(4) V. Jagdish R. Panchal Room No. 11, B-Wing B-504, Vasant Vihar Society Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Ghatipada Road, Mulund (W) Road No. 16Z Mumbai – 400 080 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aijpp8167C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 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.” 10. 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. 11. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without the…

Manpreet Singh Bhullar, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…posed in respect of an addition where High Court has admitted appeal as substantial question of law, then sustainability of the addition itself becomes debatable and therefore penalty cannot be imposed. (AY.2008- 09). In CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.): It has been held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimated basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana 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 (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj). 5. As regard d…

I.T.O.19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5436/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5436/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04) बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(1) Ramesh B. Doshi R.No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Mtru A-1, Maniyar Bldg., Vs. Flat No. 34, 3Rd Floor, Mandir, Tardeo, Road, Mumbai. Near Film Centre, Tardeo, Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadpd3476E (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajkumar Singh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing 20/12/2019 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23 /12 /2019

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopathy, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Singh, AR

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

…Act. When estimation is done, it becomes nearly debatable in respect of the rate/percentage of estimation and depends upon various parameters. Numerous case laws exist on the context. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Aero traders Pvt Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271 (1 )(c) when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by: Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal a) Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 Honble Gujrat High Court in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co b) 221 ITR 110 ITAT, Mumbai in ITO Vs Chhotalal Textiles (P) Ltd 9…

Sudhir Vora, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5108/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5108/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बिधम/ Sudhir Vora Acit-Cc-3(2) Moheshwar Mension, 602, 18 & 19 Air India Bldg, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bapubhai, Vashi Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai- 400021. 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv9690D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. L. Sharma Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1997-98 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri A. L. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (DR)

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

…o5108/M/2018 A.Y. 1997-98 The penalty is not liable to be sustainable when the income has been assessed on estimation basis and in this regard. We also find support of law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), in which it is 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 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 Company reported i…

ITO - WD- 4 (1), Thane vs. Apollo Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5739/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 4(1) V. M/S. Apollo Industrial Corporation Room No. 3 Gala No. 14, Indo Industrial Estate Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Navghar Village, Plot No. 01 A-Wing, Road No. 16Z Vasai (E) - 401210 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aabfa2803Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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.” 10. 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. 8 M/s. Apollo Industrial Corporation 11. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gross Profit on the al…

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1660/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ty was imposed was estimated after applying the net profit rate and that it was a settled law that penalty on ad hoc disallowance or addition made on estimate basis was not attracted. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT 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 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 Company reported in 221 ITR 1…

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1659/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

ACIT, Jaipur vs. M.R.K.Pipes Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 636/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddawr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 636/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT Miss. MRK Pipes Ltd. Vs. Circle – 4 Parasrampuria Chambers Jaipur Road No.1, VKI, Sikar Road , Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCM 9497 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee…

Pawan Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5379/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K.Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AOFor Respondent: Sh.C.P.Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the aforesaid penalty for concealment. Where there is only an estimation of income in the hands of the assessee, there is no merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment. We find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Aero Traders P.Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of August, 2019. (N.K.BILLAIYA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सदःय लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय "याियक सदःय "याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEM…

Munna Biddu Rein, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blemunna Biddu Rein V. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3) B-801, Udyan Complex Aayakar Bhavan Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Adhpr3153P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ketki Rajeshirke & Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Ms Ketki Rajeshirke &For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 133(6)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. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without t…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6295/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 10. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gr…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6294/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 10. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gr…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6293/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. Diamond Creations of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 10. In the case on hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. 5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) has held that no penalty v/e 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. a) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) b) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in err Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 6. It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the esti…

Mr.Vershi Chheda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 356/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 356/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

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

…In this respect, we rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Mahindra Singh Khedia (2012) 71 DTR 189/252 CTR 453 (Raj HC) and CIT Vrs. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 288 (Chattisgarh HC) and CIT Vrs. Aero Traders Pvt. Lt.d (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del HC), CIT Vrs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein the levy of penalty on the basis of estimation was held to be not justified. 9. Considering the above propositions, we are also of the view that since in the present, the additions were made on estimation, therefore in view of the principles laid in the above 7…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…products was applied. It was submitted that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act cannot be levied in the cases when income is estimated. Our attention was drawn to judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 316(Delhi), judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1996) 232 ITR 311(MP). It was submitted that the decision relied by I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 the Department were not applicable as they relates to pre-amended period. 9.2. It was submitted by Ld. DR on the other hand that no proper sale…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

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

…ockery house (1999) 235 ITR 554 (Patna); CIT verses metal products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT vs. Whitelene chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj); CIT verses Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (Allahabad); CIT verses Aero traders (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); CIT verses Modi industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (Punjab and Haryana) and CIT verses Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378. Further reliance is also made on the decisions reported in CIT verses Reliance Petro products (P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 and also CIT verses DCM Ltd Limited(2013) 359 ITR 0101 (Delhi). 8. Ld. DR heavily relied u…

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed

ITA 4104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ìta No. 4104/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Vivek Jairath, Vs Dcit, C/O Matta & Associates, Circle-2, 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Ghaziabad. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Pan: Adnpj0779P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, Ca Assessee By: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, CA

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ing inaccurate particulars of income can neither be imposed nor sustained on enhancement of net profit rate based on an estimate. The Hon'ble Delhi High ITA 4013 & 4104/D/2015 Assessment years 2006-07, 2009-10 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 Punjab & Haryana 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). Accordingly, we are of th…