How many judgments cite CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd.?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd. (352 ITR 394), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd.

352 ITR 394High Court2013#9015 most cited

What is CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd. authority for?

A penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed merely because the Assessing Officer (AO) treated expenditure claimed as revenue by the assessee as capital expenditure, provided the assessee disclosed the nature of the transaction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd. · 352 ITR 394 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · disclosure of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars revenue expenditure capital expenditure section 271(1)(c)section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.657/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant V RBL Bank Ltd., Commissioner of Income s 179 E Mahaveer, Tax,Kolhapur. E Ward Shri Shahu Market Yard, Maharashtra – 416005. PAN: AABCT3335M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri S. Sriram & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri Date of hearing 17/09/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER D…

Maaran Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Or Joint Or Deputy Or Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Maaran Multitrading Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit Private Limited /Ito, Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai. 5A Jindal Mansion, Dr. G. Vs. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai- 400026. Pan: Aahcm 1425 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

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

…has referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petrochemicals P Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC). The ld. Counsel has also referred the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 wherein it is held that merely because assessee claimed expenditure as revenue which held by the AO as capital in that case penalty for concealment could not be imposed where assessee disclosed nature of transaction. 6. We have also perused the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dresser-Rand India (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT 24 ITR(T) 610 holdin…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 209/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2002-03

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

…; 4) PCIT vs. Harsh International (P) Ltd. 431 ITR 118 (Del.); 5) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers: 368 ITR 722 (Del.); 6) CIT vs. Rahul Mehta: ITA No. 423/2011 (Del.) 7) CIT vs. Electrolux Kelvenatro Ltd. 357 ITR 665 (Del.); & 8) CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P&H).” 9. Undisputedly, assessee company has claimed a deduction of Rs.477,142,665 on account of “non-compete fee” amortized in its returns of income supported with computation sheet. When the claim lodged by the assessee company, in its return of income on the basis of its audited financials have been rejected by the lower authorities while ta…

The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Clp Power India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1128/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…xpenditure as revenue expenditure or capital nature is debatable, mere disallowance of assessee’s claim could not be a ground to impose penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Another reference was made to the decision rendered in CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 394 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein the aforesaid position has been reaffirmed that where the assessee has claimed expenditure as revenue, which was held as capital by AO, could not be the reason for imposition of penalty. 4.1 Adverting to the facts, the learned counsel submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of development of power projec…

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2658/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…he actual payment and it is not the case of the AO reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amtek 6 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P & H) the ld.AR submitted that the penalty cannot be levied on the addition made on difference of opinion. 10. Replying to the above, the ld.DR supported the penalty as well as first appellate order and submitted that after amendment in the section 43A with effect from 01.04.2003, decrease or increase in allowability on notional basis as per A…

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2660/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2659/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…Sadhu Singh & Sons 344 ITR 316 (P &H) • CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. 347 ITR 478 (P &H) • Mehsons Export Vs. ITO 347 ITR 639 (All) • Price Water House Coopers pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) • CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P &H) 3 Vishnu Kumar Bhargava vs. ITO • CIT vs. P. rojes 356 ITR 703 (Mad) • Naresh Chandra Agrawal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (All) • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores L…

Blue Star Ltd (Blue Star Infotech Ltd Now Merged With Blue Star Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Blue Star Limited (Blue Star The Assistant Commissioner Infotech Limited Now Merged Of Income Tax Circle 9(2)(1), बिधम/ With Blue Star Limited) Mumbai. Band Box House, 4Th Floor, Vs. 254-D, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai Maharashtra 400030 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacb6385J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e Act: • CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT], • CIT v. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited [1993] 21 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court); • CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.[2011] 334 ITR 367 (Delhi HC) • CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd [2013] 352 ITR 394 (P&H)(HC) • CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd [2003] 259 ITR 212 (HC Raj) • CIT V. Sivananda Steels Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 683 (HC Madras) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds, as also all reliefs consequential thereto. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by de…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Inter Ocean Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…rst addition, it was submitted that merely making a claim in the return of income which are not sustainable in law does not amount to attract penalty provisions. In this regard, the assessee has relied on the following case laws : (i). CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P&H) (ii). DCIT vs. Punjab Urban Development Authority 152 ITD 305 (Chand) (iii). CIT vs. Aero Trades Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) (iv). Ajay Gupta vs. DCIT, 50 ITR (T) 179 (Delhi-Trib) 5. In respect of adhoc addition of Rs.41,06,565/- on account of expenses on payment made on behalf of foreignship owners, the Assessing Officer in the assessm…

The ACIT, Cicle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Fine Line Circuits Company, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1742/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nirmit Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Roopchand, Sr. D.R

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ue and the Assessee regarding the allowability of a claim, no penalty should be levied. Similar view has been taken by the judicial authorities in the cases of Millennium International v. ACIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 16 (Delh Trib), CIT v Amtek Auto Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 394 (P&H) and Devsons (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 329 ITR 483 (Delhi). The gist of these cases is that when a legal issue arises for consideration, which is debatable but the claim made by the assessee is not accepted, there is no justification to invoke the penalty provisions u/s. 271(1)(c). Divergent legal views on legal interpretation of a statute can…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…CM Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi HC) >- 335 ITR 558, CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (P&H High Court) >- 349 ITR 112, Karan Raghav Export P Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 293 ITR 524, CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Madras H.C.). >- 352 ITR 394, CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. ( P &H High Court) >- 347 ITR 478, CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. ( P &H High Court). >- 329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 377 ITR 417, Principal CIT vs. G.K. Properties P Ltd. (T & AP) 23) It is well established that even if it is presumed that two views are possible, the assessee c…