CIT v. Bhartesh Jain

323 ITR 358High Court2010#9181 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also reported as

235 CTR 220

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 274
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)satisfaction for initiation of penaltyspeculation losssection 73bona fide mistakesection 43(5)speculative transactiondeletion of penaltysection 35dpenalty proceedings initiatedstatement under section 132(4)non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhartesh Jain

INU EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Hybrid Hearing) Inu Exports Private Limited Ito, 12(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar Office No. 33, Shrinaman Plaza, Vs Behind Shoppers Stop Kandivali, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaaci 6806 M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 270Section 270ASection 274

…in it was held that mere treatment of business loss as speculative loss will not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. To support his submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions;  CIT Vs Bhartesh Jain (2010) 323 ITR 358 (Delhi),  CIT Vs SPK Steels (P) Ltd (2005) 144 TAXMAN 469 (MP),  CIT Vs Auric Investment & Securities Ltd (2007) 163 Taxman 533 (Delhi), 4 INU Exports Private Limited  DCIT Vs Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kol-Trib),  ITO Vs GACL Finance Ltd (2009) 30 SOT 360 (Mumbai) 5. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that rat…

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nce of concealment of income and there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of CIT -vs.- Bhartesh Jain [323 ITR 358 (Delhi)], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c). Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infir…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

ITA 4418/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &
Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…), it was held that "..The mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss by the assessing officer does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. ”. 22. Identical view on these facts had been taken in the case of CIT vs Bhartesh Jain (323 ITR 358)(Del) . Thus in my considered opinion, when the transactions of the assessee are undisputedly genuine, then merely claim of setoff of loss arising out of these transactions can-not be the sole reason to levy penalty in view of the complexity of the issues involved, and the true and full disclosures made by it in the financial statements and durin…

BRIGHT METAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

…ify inference of concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. There being no infirmity in the reasoning given by the Tribunal. no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises. CIT Vs. Bhartesh Jain (2010) 323 ITR 358 (Del.) (HC) Business loss claimed by assessee treated as speculation loss does not amount to concealment so as to attract penalty under sec. 271(1)(c). DCIT Vs. Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd. (2017) 166 ITD 209 (Kol.) (Trib.) Merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as a speculative loss,…

ACE INDIA MEDICAL SYSTEM,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Cit(A). Thus Order Of Cit(A) To Such Extent Is Erroneous In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri S.K Gogra (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…71(1)(c) and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.” The Co-ordinate Bench has followed the Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPK Steels (P.) Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 156, CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain (2010) 323 ITR 358 (Del.), the facts are identical. The Revenue has not distinguished these decisions. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we hereby direct the AO to delete the penalty. Thus, grounds raised in this appeal are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 08thday of Nove…