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.

Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5655/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., 5/66, Kc Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, House, 3Rd Floor, Padam Singh Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0343R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Syed Nasir, Acit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order

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

…e, no penalty can be imposed, is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 170 CTR (P & H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H) have observed that merely because 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 be meant that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In the case under consider…

M/S Pik Pen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4437/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 32Section 43(1)

…gredients 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 t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)

…e, no penalty can be imposed, is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 170 CTR (P & H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H) have observed that merely because certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it 21 cannot mean that particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong. It was held that mere disallowance of expenses per- se cannot be meant that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In the case under consi…

Scinida Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 6431/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1999-00
For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistri,Niraj Sheth & K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikhalje (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.6431/M/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1999-2000 Scindia Investments Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT-7(2) B-431, Phoenix House Aayakar Bhavan 462, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs Maharshi Karve Marg Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACS 8590 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : S/Shri J.D. Mistri,Niraj Sheth & K.K. Ved राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Cen Cir 36 M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals R.No.11, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan,, Ground Floor, Sunder Baug, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Niraj House, Opp. Deonar Depot. Deonar, Mumbai-400088 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aabcn1596J Revenue By Shri S.S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent By None (Ar)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 80I

…ilip N. Shroff V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [ (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC)] K.C. Builders V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax [ (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC)] CIT V. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. [(1994) 117 CTR 378 (Ori.)] CIT V. Ajaib Singh & Co. [(2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punj. & Har)] CIT V. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [ (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC)]” 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, which was submitted vide letter dated 26.5.2010, the gist of which is reproduced as under: "In this case, the assessee had filed its E-return on 29.11.2006 declaring total income at Ni…

CIT vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA - 1855 / 2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…nt proceedings will not lead to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (1) Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del); & (2) CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H). In the circumstances and facts of the case and the decisions relied upon the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO. The same is directed to be cancelled. Thus Ground Nos. 1 (i) to 1(iii) of the assessee are allowed.” 10. The Revenue is in appeal. It is contended on its behalf that the order…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA/1855/2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…nt proceedings will not lead to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (1) Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del); & (2) CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H). In the circumstances and facts of the case and the decisions relied upon the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO. The same is directed to be cancelled. Thus Ground Nos. 1 (i) to 1(iii) of the assessee are allowed.” 10. The Revenue is in appeal. It is contended on its behalf that the order…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…t the assessee was not guilt in furnishing inaccurate particulars to sustain levy of penalty and has relied upon the following judgments: - i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem Dass [248 ITR 234 (P & H)]; - Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. [253 ITR 630 (P&H)]; and - iii) Hargopal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [258 ITR 85 (P&H)]. In the aforesaid cases, it was held that where the assessee's returned his income on estimate basis but the AO as well as the CIT (A) admitted the different estimate, it was a case of difference of opinion and on estimation of disallowance, no penalty under Se…

Ecs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1248 / 2008HC Delhi26 Oct 2009
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…the assessee was not guilt in furnishing inaccurate particulars to sustain levy of penalty and has relied upon the following judgments: i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem Dass [248 ITR 234 (P & H)]; ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. [253 ITR 630 (P&H)]; and Hargopal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [258 ITR 85 (P&H)]. In the aforesaid cases, it was held that where the assessee's returned his income on estimate basis but the AO as well as the CIT (A) admitted the different estimate, it was a case of difference of opinion and on estimation of disallowance, no penalty under Section 27…