CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co.

253 ITR 630High Court2002#2357 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 366,005 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.

Taj Exim International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 6351/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Taj Exim International Ltd. Dy. Cit-3(3) Aayakar C/O. Jayesh Sanghrajka & Co Vs. Bahvan Mumbai. Chartered Accountants Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aacft6983H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Y.K. Gaiha, Ar Revenue By : Mr. D.G. Pansari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Y.K. Gaiha, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…merely because 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)(c) of the Act. Taj Exim International Also it has been held in CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H), “that merely because certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it cannot mean that the particulars furnished by the assessee are wrong. Disallowance of an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of its income. Concealment involves penal action. It has to be proved as a…

Likproff India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2337/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2337/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Likproof India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Circle 1(2), 105, 1St Floor, Topaz Sra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Co-Op Housing Society Dr. Marg, Mumbai-400020. A. Nair Road, Agripada Mumbai-400011. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1873B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Milin Bakhai (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Milin Bakhai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…the subsequent year in which the TDS has been paid to the Gov. Treasury. The first appellate authority, in our considered opinion, has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ajain Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630, wherein it is held that mere disallowance of expenditure will not per se amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. At para 4 page 3 of his order, the first appellate authority rightly held as follows: Once the explanation of the assessee is not considered false and explanation has been given the penalty can only be levied if the…

ITO WD 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kesar Petroproducts Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1169/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…Investments Co. P. Lid. -vs- ITO 6 ITR 789 12 CIT -vs- Reliance Peiroproducis P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 13 CIT -vs- Punjabhai Shah 67 ITR 337 14 SMT Gunwamibhai Raiilal -vs- CIT 1 46 ITR 140 15 CIT -vs- MD Warasar Hussain 171 ITR 405 16. CIT -vs- Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 11. Considering the findings recorded by CIT(A) vis-a-vis- judicial pronouncements relied on, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty levied with respect to belated payment of employer’s and employee’s contribution, prior period expenses and refund of sales tax. 12. In the result, appeals of Revenue…

Sykz Hair and Skin Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1440/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)

…for quantum addition but certainly not for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is sheltered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630(P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- 6 M/s. SYKZ Hair & Skin Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.1440 & 1583/Mum/2016 “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the inco…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3504/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. PurushottamFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3504 & 3464/DEL/2013 A.Yrs. 2005-06 & 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), VS. M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ROOM NO. 163, A-31, MOHAN COOPERATIVE C.R. BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA NEW DELHI ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. Purushottam Anand, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the Orders of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3464/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. PurushottamFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3504 & 3464/DEL/2013 A.Yrs. 2005-06 & 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), VS. M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ROOM NO. 163, A-31, MOHAN COOPERATIVE C.R. BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA NEW DELHI ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. Purushottam Anand, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the Orders of…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. Shri Alok Garg, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARPG7151K Assessee by : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 21.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Aligarh. 2. The only grievance of the department in this app…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Circle-4(1), L-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 407, C.R. Building, New Delhi I.P. Estate, (Pan:Aaacj2146B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…nation which is unproved but not disproved i.e., it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is false. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. [2002] 253 ITR 630 have 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 inaccurate particulars of its income. It is repeatedly held by the Cour…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dhl Operations B.V., Netherlands, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ch finding has been recorded by the AO in this case. On the contrary all facts have been disclosed by the appellant and the assessment has been made merely on difference of opinion. 7.7. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 ( Punjab & Harya na) has held that disallowance of an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Concealment involves penai action and has to be proved as a conscious act. The claim made by the assessee may have been under erroneous understanding of law but it cannot be lead to the conclusion…

The Dy CIT Cir.1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aegis Logistics Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 8372/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited ACIT, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. PAN:AAACA 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessm…

M/S. Aegis Logistics Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7825/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited ACIT, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. PAN:AAACA 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessm…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 835/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-7(2), M/S Shree Ram Urban बनाम/ Room No.624, Infrastructure Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Shree Ram Vs. M.K. Road, Mills Ltd.) Ganpatrao Mumbai-400020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400013 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaccs0454P याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…t for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is sheltered by the 4 Mr. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630(P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inac…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…nations in respect of such claim and more over there is a debate or 'dispute on such issues. Reliance in support of the same has been placed on the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 3. Zycus Infotech (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 17 SOT 310 (Mum) 4. ACIT vs. DSL Software Ltd. 147 TTJ 67 (Del) 5. ACIT vs. Jaya Chakravarty 33 CCH 108 (Del) 6. DCIT vs. Genesys International Corp. Ltd. 21 ITR 581 (Mum) 3 M/s. Core Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. 7. UNI Design Jewellery (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT 6 ITR 10 (Mum) The A/R of the appellant has relied on the f…

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Madhu C. Ganwani, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2458/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) Smt. Madhu C. Ganwani, बनाम/ Room No. 319, 301, Pallonji Apartments, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 389, Linking Road, Vs. Mumbai – 12 Khar (West), Mumbai – 52 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aanpg 4048 D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Neil Philiph - Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Ms. Varsha Dhameja – Ca

Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…case for quantum addition but certainly not for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is sheltered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630( P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the ina…

Vibrant De-Hydro Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vibrant De-Hydro Foods Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-9(3)(3), बनाम/ Shop No.64, Rizvi Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaccv4593J

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…(11a) of the Act, therefore, the penalty was imposed for wrong claim made by the assessee. This proposition is sheltered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630( P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the ina…

Tarang Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4842/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Tarang Textiles Pvt Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 2-A, Vaghyane Nivas, Range-4(3)(2), बनाम/ 1St Floor, 172, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Sitaram Poddar Road, M.K. Road, Phanaswadi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcd1894N

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s Tarang Textiles Pvt Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 2-A, Vaghyane Nivas, Range-4(3)(2), बनाम/ 1st Floor, 172, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Sitaram Poddar Road, M.K. Road, Phanaswadi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AABCD1894N Shri Naveen Chaturvedi "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri A. Rajhans -DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 01/09/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…income and hence the levy of penalty does not arise. The assessee relied on the following case laws:- 1. Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT (2003) 261 ITR 67 (Raj.) 2. CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd., 259 ITR 212 (Raj.) 3. CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 4. DCIT v. G.M. Gupta (2003) SOT 230 (Del) 5. Vinod Kapur v. ITO (2003) 127 Taxman 53 6. CIT v. Honeywell Dace (India) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 169 (Del) ITA 7053/Mum/2013 7 7. Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 8. T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007)292 ITR 11(SC) 9. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 10. D…

Biren Shah, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.16(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 7462/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7462/Mum/2011 & I.T.A.757/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Biren Shah बनाम/ Dcit 16(3) 1, Phoenix, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Svp Road, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amxps9908A

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7462/Mum/2011 & I.T.A.757/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Biren Shah बनाम/ DCIT 16(3) 1, Phoenix, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. SVP Road, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AMXPS9908A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Ms. Sanjukta Chowdhury Department by: Shri Sumit Kumar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing: 22.04.2016 घोषणा क"…

Pik Pen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 998/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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

…ingredients for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even, if a wrong claim is made, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer either to rejected or to guide the assessee. The decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs Ajayb Singh & Company 253 ITR 630 (P & H) supports the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Ltd. observed as under:- “10. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the…

Pik Pen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 997/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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

…ingredients for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even, if a wrong claim is made, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer either to rejected or to guide the assessee. The decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs Ajayb Singh & Company 253 ITR 630 (P & H) supports the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Ltd. observed as under:- “10. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the…