How many judgments cite CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd.?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (288 ITR 585), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 260A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 35ABB, Section 115JB.

CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd.

288 ITR 585High Court2007#3038 most cited

What is CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. authority for?

Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the Assessing Officer; there must be an intention to evade tax liability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Bacardi Martini India Ltd · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · difference of opinion · intention to evade tax · 271(1)(c) · 143(3)

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 348

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 260A Section 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB Section 115JB Section 155(18)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14(a)section 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 271(l)copyrighted article section 52 fees for included services section 271(l)(c)royalty income computer software penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 195

Judgments citing CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd.

Hilton International Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7701/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S.P. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kr. Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ents in the case of:- • Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (168 ITR 705)(SC) • Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 4862/Del/2013) 5.1 The Ld. AR has also brought to our notice the Judgment in the case of Bacardi Martini India Limited (288 ITR 585) (Del), wherein it was held that, no penalty is imposable on debatable issue on which two different legal interpretations are possible and the Appellant adopted one of the views based on favorable judicial precedents. 5 ITA No. 7701/Del/2017. Hilton International LLC. 6. The Ld. DR has relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and argued based on…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Sunil Mantri Realtors Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Pawan Singhअपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5159/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर अपील िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" The Acit-Central Circle 29, Sunil Mantri Realtors Ltd., Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, G-1, Court Chambers, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. V Thakkersey Marg, 35, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaecm3036B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V Justin- Dr Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.04.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 20Th May 2014 Of Cit(A)-40, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee- Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs 46,144/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment, On 30Th Jan 2013, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs 40.42 Lacs. While Completing The Assessment,He Made Disallowance Of Rs 39.96 Lacs With Regard To Profit On Sale Of Shares. He Issued A Notice Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Filing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri V Justin- DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 274

…ellate Authority (FAA) and made detailed submissions. After considering the available material and relying upon the judgment of Reliance Petro Chemicals Product Limited (322 ITR 158), Sherwani Hospitalities Limited (261 CTR 449), Bacardy Martini India Limited 288 ITR 585), he allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. In the meanwhile, the assessee challenged the additions in the quantum appeal. Vide its order dated 30th September 2015, the Tribunal (ITA 4216/Mum/2013) restored back issue of taxability of Long Term Capital gains on listed equity shares to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of disal…

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4391/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4391/Del /2014 Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Anand and Anand, DCIT, B-41, Nizamuddin East, Circle-37(1), vs New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN:AAAFA0186F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri B.K. Anand, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi…

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)

…1C cannot be imposed where the tax was not deducted at source on salary paid to expatriate employees since assessee was under bonafide belief that he was not liable to deduct tax at source. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bacardi Martin India Ltd.,288 ITR 585 (Delhi) has held that penalty u/s.271(I)( c) cannot be levied in a case where in the revised return filed subsequently on the basis of appellate order claim of loss was reduced and only the claim of expenditure was disallowed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that concealment inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. To attract penalty…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…accurate particulars of income. The decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C. Builders Vs Asst. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 supports the case of the assessee. The decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 also supports the case of the assessee. The decision from the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs Budhewal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR (P&H) where in all particulars relating to computation of income were disclosed, the cancellation of penalty under section 271 (1)( C) was held to be justified. Identical ratio w…

Agarwal Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1166/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

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

…at the assessee could not furnish evidence in support of expenses claimed was not by itself enough to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. iv. DURGA KAMAL RICE MILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 (CAL.) v. CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI LTD. 288 ITR 585 (DEL.) 6 vi. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS. ITO 112 ITR 592 (CAL.) vii. CIT. VS. AMAR NATH230 ITR 619 (ALL.) viii. CIT. VS. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPN. 166 ITR 29 (CAL.) ix. CIT VS. LOTUS TRANS TRA VELS (P) LTD.177 TAXMAN37 (DEL.) Thus, the disallowance of claim of deduction is not sufficient for imposition of pe…

B.S.N. Consultants (P)Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward No.8(1)(2) Now Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1640/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 & 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, Ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8Th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccb1907E

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1639 and 1640/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s B S N Consultants (P) Ltd. बिाम/ The Income Tax Officer, 81, B Wig Park Plaza, ward 8(1)(2), Room Bo.225, Vs. 8th Road, 7 Banglows, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Miumbai-400061 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN/GIR No. :AACCB1907E अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant by: Shri Dinesh Shah प…

B.S.N. Consultants (P)Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 8(1)(2) Now Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…ing the Sundry Balances written off between the A.O, the learned CIT (A) and the ITAT itself inter se and from year to year. The Ld. AR also placed a Chart authority (except the Hon’ble High Court for the A.Y 2002-03), as to the amount was disallowable (2007)288 ITR 585(Delhi), and read out para15 thereof which reads as under; “There are cases where expenditure is disallowed by the Assessing Officer and it is allowed by the CIT (A). It is again disallowed by the ITAT and in appeal allowed by the High Court and may be disallowed by the Supreme Court. Merely because there is difference of opinion for allowing or…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

…nclusion by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts [P] Ltd [supra], Dillip N. Shroff, UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 [SC] and CIT Vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd [2007] 288 ITR 585/158 Taxman 348 [Delhi] held that mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is no ground for levying penalty especially when there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide or any material 5 particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate. 6…

ACIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.3922/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) ACIT-15(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. Neelkanth Palm Realty, Fine House, Fifth Floor, Anandji Lane, M.G.Road, Ghatkoper(E), Mumbai- 400077 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAEEN 5224 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.R.Kirtane ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Gyneshwar Kataram सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 30/11/2…

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)

…ssessee that in reply to the query of the AO, some new facts were discovered or the AO had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessee. In such circumstances, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd, 288 ITR 585 (Del) that no penalty was leviable. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our notice which may prove that the Revenue detected the concealment. In CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd (259 ITR 212) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that when the assessee has claimed some amount though that is debatab…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. M/S. Anant Overseas P. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/479/2014HC Delhi04 Sept 2014

Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No. 479/2014 Page 1 of 9 $~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 04, 2014 + ITA 479/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Swati Thapa, Advocate versus M/S. ANANT OVERSEAS P. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that he has obtained instructions. By order dated 14.11.2013 in the q…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…Page 12 of 19 17. In a series of judgments, this Court has affirmed the aforesaid legal position and these judgments are :- 1. CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 2. CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International (2007) 288 ITR 670 3. CIT v. International Audio Visual (2007) 288 ITR 570 18. In CIT v Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term “furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. It was observed that “inaccurate particulars” means the details supplie…

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

ITA - 622 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Section 158Section 158BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…4 ITR 215 (P&H); CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises, (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H); Ms.Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) and CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 585 (Delhi). 11. The crux of the ratio of above decisions is that a mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In order to be covered within the proviso of clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271, there has to be concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or the asses…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/296/2006HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271

…tions stated therein must exist.” 2010:DHC:5727-DB ITA No.367/2004 & 296/2006 Page 37 of 42 33. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this Court held that merely because there was a difference of opinion between the assessed and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessed had intention to conceal his income. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under : “13. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.…

M/S De vs. Ons Pvt Ltdvs.Commissioner of Income Tax &

ITA - 367 / 2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271

…tions stated therein must exist.” 2010:DHC:5593-DB ITA No.367/2004 & 296/2006 Page 37 of 42 33. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this Court held that merely because there was a difference of opinion between the assessed and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessed had intention to conceal his income. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under : “13. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/367/2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271