CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd.
310 ITR 121High Court2009#3665 most cited
What is CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. authority for?
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically warranted merely because the Assessing Officer reclassifies a business loss as a speculative loss, especially if the assessee did not conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The AO's change in treatment alone does not infer concealment.
33
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.
Also referred to as
CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. · section 271(1)(c) · speculative loss · business loss · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty proceedings · section 43(5) · section 73 · bona fide mistake
Also reported as
163 Taxmann 533
Sections most often in play
Issues it is cited on
Judgments citing CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd.
Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2