CIT v. Agro Chemicals (India)

288 ITR 149High Court2007#24241 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Agro Chemicals (India)

M/S. Surya Automobiles Private Limited, Abohar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 44

…only because no appeal has been filed against addition / disallowance. The reliance is placed on following judgements: CIT vs, Ralblr Singh (2008 3014ITR 125 (P&H) I. CIT vs.Kamla Chemicals Industries (2005) 277ITR 150 (P&H) ii. CIT vs. Agro Chemicals India 288 ITR 149 (P&H) iii CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co, (2007) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) iv. CIT vs. Mehta Engineers Ltd. (2008) 300 ITR 308 (P&H) v CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P&H)” vi. The Id. counsel also argued that it is a settled principle of law that 5. even if some claim made bythe Assessee is not allowed by the A.O., penalty cannot be i…

Smt. Arti Shadija, Indore vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 261/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Shadija, Acit/Dcit, 158, Palsikar Colony, 4(1), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aznps 5697 M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2023

Section 131Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ough that has not been done yet the case of assessee does not warrant imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) since it is very clear that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars. Relying upon decision in CIT Vs. Agro Chemicals (India) (2007) 288 ITR 149 (P&H), Ld. AR submitted that penalty proceedings are independent and merely because an addition is upheld, penalty cannot be automatically upheld. Finally, Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, there is no justification to impose penalty; the same ought to be deleted. 4. Ld. DR for revenue strongly supported the penalty-order and submitted…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…is that the penalty proceedings are distinct and independent of the assessment proceedings, so that the confirmation of the addition in assessment would not lead to an automatic levy of penalty, adverting to the decision in CIT v. Agrochemicals (India) [2007] 288 ITR 149 (P&H). Reliance was also placed on the decision in National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj), reproducing there-from. Both the deponents, i.e., Shri Babu Singh and Shri Harjeet Singh, had in their respective statements admitted to have advanced cash to the assessee, so that the rejection of their statements, forming part of the assessee’s…