CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co.

253 ITR 630High Court2002#2382 most cited

What is CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. authority for?

The mere disallowance of an expenditure claimed by the assessee does not automatically mean that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on this ground. There must be an independent finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, typically a conscious act.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. · Ajaib Singh & Co. · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty for inaccurate particulars · penalty for concealment · disallowance of expenditure · mere disallowance · penalty not automatic · conscious act · Punjab and Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 35ABBSection 115JBSection 32ACSection 37

Issues it is cited on

block of assetspenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 260section 260aconcealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co.

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

…/ 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 imposed on that. The Id. Counsel also argued that the li…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/s. Vodafone West Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (thereafter merged with New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACF1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (earlier known as Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACB2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ass…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/s. Vodafone West Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (thereafter merged with New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACF1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (earlier known as Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACB2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ass…

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

…sessment or re-assessment proceedings, it has been held that penalty is imposed for insufficient and unreasonable cause. A similar case came before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana I.T.A. No.1641/Mum/2010 And High Court of CIT V/s Mehta Engineers Limited (2008) 300 ITR 308 (P&H). Assessee made a claim about the expenditure and the return mentioned, based on which such claim was made. AO after disallowing the claim, imposed penalty u/s 271)(1)( c ) of the Act for concealing particulars of income. The First Appellate Authority cancelled the penalty and Tribunal upheld his order. In the appeal filed by the department,…

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mitul Pravinchandra Malani, Assistant Commissioner of Unit 1A, 1st Floor, 12, Income Tax, Circle 33, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Vs Kolkata, Kolkata - 700071 10B, Middleton Row, (PAN: AJHPM7946B) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by : Subhendu Datta, CIT DR Monali Shaha Mukherjee, JCIT Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT M…

PARANJAPE PENDSE ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1145/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Paranjape Pendse Associates DCIT, Circle – 3, Pune C/o Pendse Associates, Commerce Vs. Centre, Opp Krishna Hospital, Paud Road, Pune – 411038 PAN : AAGFP2301M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR Date of hearing : 09-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 10-09-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 of the CIT(A) /…

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. These principles got settled from the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9 SC), CIT vs. K. R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (246 ITR 121 Mad) and CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (253 ITR 630 P&H). In the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied where the Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith. In the case of K. R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (supra), it was held that of gre…

THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 80P

…naccurate particulars of income, merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. In the case of CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H), it is held that merely because certain expenses THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY VS ITO, WARD 2(3), AJMER claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority it cannot mean that the particulars furnished by the assessee are wrong. Disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars…

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 288/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…as further contended that it was merely inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and, therefore, no penalty can be levied. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Flexituff International Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the said contention of the appellant that the mistake was inadvertent and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.23,77,951/- vide penalty order dated 19.09.2016. Even on appeal before the ld.…

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 287/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…as further contended that it was merely inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and, therefore, no penalty can be levied. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Flexituff International Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the said contention of the appellant that the mistake was inadvertent and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.23,77,951/- vide penalty order dated 19.09.2016. Even on appeal before the ld.…

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…as further contended that it was merely inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and, therefore, no penalty can be levied. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Flexituff International Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the said contention of the appellant that the mistake was inadvertent and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.23,77,951/- vide penalty order dated 19.09.2016. Even on appeal before the ld.…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI vs. BISTRO HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1335/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…of the A.O. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant has offered to explain the said purchases with reference to peculiar characteristics to its business. Further, as has been held in CIT vs. Rajbans Singh 276 ITR 351, CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and other related cases on identical facts, penalty is liable to be cancelled, where an amount has been enhanced on an estimated basis. In the said judgment the Hon’ble ITAT had relied the decision in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd., wherein it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be imposed when income is determine…

BISTRO HOSPITALITY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.IT, RANGE-5,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1117/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…of the A.O. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant has offered to explain the said purchases with reference to peculiar characteristics to its business. Further, as has been held in CIT vs. Rajbans Singh 276 ITR 351, CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and other related cases on identical facts, penalty is liable to be cancelled, where an amount has been enhanced on an estimated basis. In the said judgment the Hon’ble ITAT had relied the decision in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd., wherein it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be imposed when income is determine…

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IKEA TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1270/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., Dlf Infinity Tower-A, 8Th Floor, Dlf Circle-12(1), New Delhi Cybercity, Sector-25, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1483Q Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 1270/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ACIT, Vs IKEA Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity Tower-A, 8th Floor, DLF Circle-12(1), New Delhi Cybercity, Sector-25, Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH1483Q Assessee by : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 05.03.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Membe…

HITEN YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (1)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2283/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he considered view that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The law that penalty would not be exigible merely because an addition is made on estimate basis was reiterated in CIT v. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) and CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law we delete the penalty of Rs.1,20,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEM…

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)

…rticulars or filing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Mere disallowance in the assessment proceedings will not lead to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.Ltd (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del); CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) In view of above submissions, it is prayed that the penalty of ' 77,393/-imposed by the Ld. A.O. under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may kindly be waived. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the penalty by observing as under: 5.1 I have carefully considered by the facts of the case, th…

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…it is incorrect, inadmissible claim has been made in the return and to the all material and facts having been disclosed in the return of income. The Ld. counsel placed reliance on the following case laws: “1. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajaib Singh and Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mehta Engineers Ltd. 300 ITR 308 (P&H) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). 4. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 306 (SC). 5. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. D.V Bapat Income Tax Officer 101 ITR 292 (Bom).” 6. Per contr…

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…IT (A) further agreed that mere disallowance of certain expenses would not automatically lead to penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon 'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co (2001) 170 CTR (P&H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) and several other judgments. The CIT (A) accordingly accepted the explanation of the assessee in relation to various disallowance as bona fide and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. Aggrieved by the said decision the Revenue is in appeal. We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The Page 8 of 25 ITA-…

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri. B.M. Monga, Shri. Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)

…is further submitted that the assessee is a honest tax payer and has been cooperating in assessment proceeding for the last several years. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court in the case of CIT vs Ajaib Singh & co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 wherein it was observed that merely because of certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority. It cannot mean that particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong. It was held that mere disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that assessee has furnished in accurate particulars of its income. He relied on the submi…

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed

ITA 243/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…e of an expense per se did not mean that the assessee had concealed particulars of income and had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty could not be levied. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1) CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 2) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh& Co., 254 ITR 191 (P&H) 3) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproduct (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities stating that the Panchkula unit was admittedly the head office of the assessee’s business and depreciation on office and furniture equipment had to be allocat…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3