CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.

259 CTR 383High Court2013#3438 most cited

What is CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. authority for?

A mere disallowance of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on this basis.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd · section 271(1)(c) · inaccurate particulars of income · disallowance · penalty levy · section 32AC · bad debts · inadvertent mistake

Also reported as

33 Taxmann.com 227201 ITR 1021

Sections most often in play

Section 32ACSection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 115section 27section 11transferprescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1608/PUN/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Ward-8(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 Maharashtra PAN : AADCB6018P Appellant Respondent : Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare Date of hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 08.05.202…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WORLD SERIES HOCKEY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3894/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nNoneFor Respondent: \nShri SwapnilChoudhary- Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…these bad debts. As\nper various judicial pronouncements, disagreeing of AO can not be reason for\nlevy of penalty. In this regard, the reliance is placed on CIT v Reliance\nPetroproducts P Ltd - 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd,\n(2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom). Hence, in view of the discussion made in above\nparas, I delete the penalty levied by AO.”\nAggrieved, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal\nagainst deletion of the penalty by the ld. CIT(A).\n4.\nWe have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. None has\nappeared on behalf of the assessee.\nIt is seen that t…

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

…nvestment allowance u/s.32AC, it does not automatically result into furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (25 taxmann.com 400), CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (259 CTR 383 (Bom HC), PCIT vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (290 Taxman 77 (Guj HC) and Deepi Rupindersingh Arora vs. ACIT (52 ITRT) 285 (Mumbai - Trib.) are relevant. Accordingly, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) levied by the AO on part disallowance of deduction u/s.32AC is deleted.” 9.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the…

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…y way of revised computation, was merely around 0.70% of FIS income already offered to tax. In the similar facts and circumstances, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 93 (Bombay) (Mag.)/[2013] 259 CTR 383 (Bombay)[26-02-2013], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there was inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee in that case. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “2. So far as…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. RASTRIYA COMPUTER SAKSHARATA SAMITHI, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1098/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rastriya The Assistant Computer Saksharata Commissioner Of Samithi, Income Tax Pm Iv 1491, (Exemptions), Sheikmale Building, Circle – 1, Vs. Puttur. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaatr9338J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit S. Bapu, Advocate &
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Rastriya The Assistant Computer Saksharata Commissioner of Samithi, Income Tax PM IV 1491, (Exemptions), Sheikmale Building, Circle – 1, Vs. Puttur. Mangaluru. PAN: AAATR9338J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Abhijit S. Bapu, Advocate & Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Revenue by JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 05-01-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present ap…

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner of Shri Chandrakant G. Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Patel, 401/402, Ratnam Ahmedabad Tower, Nr. Chief Vs Justice Bunglow, (Appellant) Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACPPP9429B (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 08-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-…

USK HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6426/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 24(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…tifiable for imposing the penalty for the charge of furnishing an inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- a) ACIT vs. Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) in ITA No. 2048/Mum/2016 (Mum. Tri.) b) CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 33 Taxmann.com 227(Bom. HC) c) Price Waterhouse Coopers vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) d) CIT vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2017 dated 19.07.2012 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as penalty order and order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the a…

ECOFRIENDLY HOTELS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pawan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ecofriendly Hotels Ito-5(1)(4), India P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Churchgate, Vs. Arcade Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 034 Pan: Aabce2260L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhat, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 111Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…leviable in case of change of heads of income as the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars in the return of income. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court namely CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there is only change of heads of income which is not shown to be perverse and therefore no substantial question of law arises. The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on th…

M/S SWANI SPICES MILLS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Lajari Oswal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Swani Spices Mills Pvt. Ltd., ACIT-1(3)(1), 4, Hari Niwas, C Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AACFS3436J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Lajari Oswal, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 17/02/2020 Date of pronouncement : 26/02/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is…

ENVISION INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2896/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…y 4 M/s. Envision Investment Consultants under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In defence of his argument, the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions: 1. CIT vs. Shri Hiralal Doshi (ITA No.2331 of 2013) dated 09.02.2016 2. CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (259 CTR 383) The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in both the above decisions have held that in case of change of heads of income while framing the assessment order would not result into levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) even though it results in higher income tax liability payable by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed…

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1290/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Heena ShethFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 204Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/s. Surinco Workwear ITO 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, v. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACS5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue by: Shri. O.P Meena (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 04.02…

SHALLU BANSAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 30/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 30/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shallu Bansal Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Plot No.1497-B Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Theosophical Lodge Rupani Circle Bhavnagar 364 001. Pan : Aijpb 8274 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 30/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shallu Bansal DCIT, Cent.Cir.1(3) Plot No.1497-B Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Theosophical Lodge Rupani Circle Bhavnagar 364 001. PAN : AIJPB 8274 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.R. Popat, AR Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 11/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30/04…

M/S JUST DIAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6900/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathajust Dial Ltd (Formerly Dcit-9(2) Known As Just Dial Pvt.Ltd.) Now Dcit 12(3)(1) M-501-B, Palm Court Room No.147B Complex, Above D-Mart Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Near Goregaon Sport Club, Mumbai-400 020 New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaca8049G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Respondent By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…was satisfactory as it was a human error. In support of the submission the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pricewaterhouse Copers Pvt Ltd (PWC) Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), Bombay High Court Vs. Bennett Colemann & Co.Ltd. 259 CTR 383, CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bombay) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Siddharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of AO. The Ld. DR further submits that had the case was not been selected for scrutiny the income would have escaped assessment, when the AO detect…

ASST CIT 23(2), MUMBAI vs. LANCELOT NORMAN DSOUSA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4318/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit-23(2), Matru Mr. Lancelot Norman Mandir, Room No. 122, 1St D’Sousa (Legal Heir Vs. Floor, Tardeo Road, Mr. Kenneth D’Sousa) Mumbai-400007 No. 4, 56, Hill Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapd5070H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. B. Jaya Kumar, Cit- Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Mr. B. Jaya Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…pital gains of Rs.18,85,71,756/- to tax. It is stated by him that it is only a change of head of income and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom); CIT v. Amit Jain (2013) 258 CTR 88 (Del) and others. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. There is no dispute that the assessee has offered to tax short term capital gains of Rs.1,91,83,705/-. Also it claimed long term capital gains of Rs.16,93,8…

ADI MEDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6035/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 24Section 24(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…B. L. International Vs. ACIT New Delhi-ITA No. 1590/Del/2014 " CIT(A) Vs. Hari Machiens Ltd 311 ITR 285 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court) " Prafful Industries Pvt. Ltrd. Vs. DCIT- ITA No. 4023/Del/2016-ITAT Delhi " CIT(A) Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (Bombay) 2012-259 CTR 383) 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) held as under:- “5.1 Decision I have considered the facts discussed by the AO in the penalty order and submission of the appellant. It is seen that the appellant has made a claim of d…

VIP CLOTHING LIMITED,THANE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, KALYAN

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

ITA 2889/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vip Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Known As Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, Vip Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Pin-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( Dr) Assessee By: Subodh L. Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50B

…able in view of the law settled in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), CIT Vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (2013) 40 taxmann.com 86 (Bom), CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits in ITA No. 1332 of 2011 & CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & CO.Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom). It is also argued that the disallowance of claim if any raised before the AO nowhere attract the penalty. In view of the law settled in Reliance Petroproducts (supra). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention and ITA. No.2889/M/17 A.Y.2012-13 strongly relied upon the order passed…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4965/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 4965/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 4966/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2007-08) M/s. Maharashtra Airport DCIT-3(2) Development Company Ltd. Vs. Room No. 608 8th Floor, World Trade 6th Floor Centre Tower No. 1, Cuffe Aayakar Bhavan Parade, Mumbai-400005. M.K. Road Mumbai-400021. PAN :AACM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lalchandani Department by Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri Rajiv Gulgotra Date of Hearing 21.8.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.8.2018…

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…r Sec. 271(1)(c) could be imposed on account of a bonafide mistake on the part of an assessee, relied on the following judicial pronouncement:- (i) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom). (iv) CIT Vs. Rose Lock Factory (1993) 204 ITR 753 (All) The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition P a g e | 21 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income T…

MAHENDRA G GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 7642/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmahendra G. Gandhi, 1,Yeshwant Bhuvan, Ram Mandir Rd., Vile Parle East, Mumbai 400057 Pan: Aabpg8818M ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito 21(1)(3), Mumbai 400051. .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mahendra G. Gandhi, 1,Yeshwant Bhuvan, Ram Mandir Rd., Vile Parle East, Mumbai 400057 PAN: AABPG8818M ...... Appellant Vs. The ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai 400051. .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala Respondent by : Shri Suman Kumar Date of hearing : 23/11/2017 Date of pronouncement : 16/ 02 /2018 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-32, Mumbai…

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3259/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Reliance Money Infrastructure Principal Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax-Room No.330, बनाम/ 7th floor, B Wing Trade World, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala Mills Compound, Mumbai-400020. Vs. S B Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADCR2730G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shr…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (259 CTR 383) — Cited in 35 Judgments | BharatTax