How many judgments cite CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd.?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (348 ITR 339), spanning 2013 to 2023.

CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd.

348 ITR 339High Court2012#6649 most cited

What is CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. authority for?

Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted for inadvertent, bonafide, or genuine claims of depreciation or expenses, or for bona fide and inadvertent errors.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · inaccurate particulars · inadvertent claim · bonafide claim · genuine claim · depreciation · expenses

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

levy of penalty section 271(1)(c)section 143(2)section 143 company section 14 business

Judgments citing CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd.

Begud Beverges Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Saho, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1798/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2015-16 Begud Beverages Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, D-73 Basement Nangal Dawat Vs. Circle-4(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AADCB8595K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Saho, CA Shri Harikishan, AR Respondent by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 20 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 27 09 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the…

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ore in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Some of the often quoted decisions are Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) (ii) ITO V. Nandlal & Co., 341 ITR 646 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., 348 ITR 339 (Del) (iv) CIT v. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad) 7. Consequently, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.9,42,29,730/- is deleted. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result, grounds of appeal no. 1, 3 & 4 become infructuous. 8. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. On a careful reading of the above…

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ore in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Some of the often quoted decisions are Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) (ii) ITO V. Nandlal & Co., 341 ITR 646 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., 348 ITR 339 (Del) (iv) CIT v. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad) 7. Consequently, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,16,27,860/- is deleted. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result, grounds of appeal no. 1, 3 & 4 become infructuous. 8. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. On a careful reading of the above…

Mdlr Airlines (P) Ktd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1461/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143Section 271

…tently disallowing the claim of depreciation but on none of the earlier assessment years the AO levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmaputra Consortium P. Ltd. 348 ITR 339 has held that inadvertent, bonafide, genuine claim of depreciation/ expenses does not call for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Private Limited 322 ITR 158. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under :- 9. In the light of…

ACIT, Circle 16 (1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle – 16(1) V. 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Heman ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ACIT Circle – 16(1) v. 1st Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, 4th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 PAN: AAACU6681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Heman Chandariya Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Pathways (Agra) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result all thethree appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3171/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs Oriental Pathways (Agra) Central Circle – 26, Pvt. Ltd., 21/48, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi – 110 021. PAN : AAACO 7826 R Applicant Respondent And ITA Nos. 3172 & 3173/Del/2017 Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2013-14 ACIT, vs Oriental Pathways (Indore) Central Circle – 26, Pvt. Ltd., OSE Commercial New Delhi. Block, Asset 5B, Aero City, Hospitality District, IGI Airport, New Delhi – 110 03…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Nagpur Bye Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Oriental Nagpur Bye Central Circle-26, Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 21/48, Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan :Aabco2017M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…herefore, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT. vs. Brahmaputra Consortium (Ltd.)(2012)348 ITR 339, the penalty is not leviable as the same is applicable in the case of appellant. 7.7 It is also to be mentioned that When the return was filed in response to notice under section 153A on 3.02.2014, the matter was debatable due to the difference in legal interpretation between the assessee and the revenue authorities and the claim was made under b…

Rajesh Sharma, Theog vs. ITO, W-2, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…cealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Ltd. Vs. CIT & Another, reported in 348 ITR 306 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 339. 6 A.Y.2014-15 7. In his rival submission, the Ld. Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee sold the agricultural land for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. Howe…

M/S. Globe Capital Market Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6090/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaita No.-6090/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Globe Capital Market Vs Dcit Ltd. Circle-10(1), 609, Ansal Bhawan, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate 16, K.G. Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 Pan Aaacg4267G Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By Ms. Rinki Singh, Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2019 Order

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

…particulars in order to levy penalty on the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Reliance was also placed upon CIT(A) vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 339 (Delhi) and order dated 29/05/2015 in ITA 371/Del/2013 in the case of India Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. Vs. DCIT and order dated 10/07/2014 in ITA 953/K0L/2012 in the case of ACIT versus Khadim India Ltd. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record admittedly as per record the claim put forth b…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/929/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ITA 929/2018+connected Page 1 of 16 $~36, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision: 28th August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD...... Respondent Through WITH ITA 932/2018 & CM No.34867/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER O…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/932/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 27Section 271Section 32

…$-36,39,40,41,47,49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision; 28^ August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate ^ versus ~ ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAQPl^ PVT. LTD..:;.^Respondent Through WITH II vi,, - ITA 932/2018 & C^M No.34867/2018 •'".i •• I.V 'rV.:' THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFTNGOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ' ,1^ \ Appellant Through: 1^. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate S' . ] * f 1, versus , n,-?, ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAOPui)!^ Respondent Through ITA 933/2018 & CM No.34868/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM…

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

…AR also relied on the following decisions : i) DIT(IT) V/s Asia Attractive Dividend stock-fund -35 taxmann.com 265 ii) CIT V/s Ask Enterprises 230 ITR 48 (Bom); ii) CIT V/s Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bom); iii) CIT V/s Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd 348 ITR 339 (Del). 18 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 Further the ld.AR argued that non initiation of penalty proceedings us/ 271(1) (c) of the Act by the AO cannot be a subject matter of the revisionary proceedings as has been held in the case of N Jamnadas and Co in ITA No.2930/Mum/2012 dated 27.1.2017. Therefore the revisionary proceedings u/…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…xmann.com 265 (Bom). (iii) CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Hiralal Doshi (2016) 383 ITR 19 (Bom). (v) CIT Vs. Stoll India (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 263 (Bom). (vi) CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 339 (Del). (vii) CIT Vs. Royale Manor Hotels & Ind. Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 491 (viii) DCIT Vs. Khanna Industrial Pipes (P.) Ltd. (2014) 35 ITR (T) 314 (Mum) (ix) ACIT Vs. Raj Multiplex (P.) Ltd. (2010) 6 ITR (T) 76 (Ahd.) (x) DCIT Vs. Shahabad Co-Op. Sugar Mills (2010) 129 TTJ 92 (Chandigarh- Trib.) (xi) DCIT Vs. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd.…

Rawal Pindi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hardipender Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Singh, CIT DR and Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…e quantum appeal; that there is no concealment of facts and furnishing of false facts by the assessee during the proceedings and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. 348 ITR 339 (Del.), CIT Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. I.T.A. No. 626/2011 (Del.), Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT 367 ITR 122 (A.P.) and CIT Vs Harshvarhan Chemicals & Minerals Lt. 259 ITR 212 (Raj.). However, on the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the assessment order passed by AO, 5 ITA No.1053/Del./2010 quantum order passed by CIT (A), penalty order and penal…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nsr Farms Private Ltd., Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1737/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir: Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Nsr Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(1), The Principal Officer, New Delhi. 606-Chiranjiv Tower, 61-Nehru Place, Delhi. (Pan: Aaacn3068J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. Department By: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

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

…ls) in deleting the penalty is fully supported by several decisions including the following: i) CIT vs. reliance Petro-product (P) Ltd. – 322 ITR 158 (S.C); ii) CIT vs. Honeywell Dac India Ltd. – 292 ITR 168 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Brahamputra Consortium Ltd. – 348 ITR 339; iv) CIT vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd. – 330 ITR 547 (Del.) & v ) Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 348 ITR 306 (S.C). 4. I find that against the returned income of Rs.68,270, the assessment under sec. 143(3) was framed at Rs.14,15,759. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and development of real estate properties…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 5062/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Kesang Y Shirpa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…t apparently, there is no concealment of facts and putting forth false facts by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, relied upon the judgements cited as CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. 348 ITR 339 (Del.), CIT Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. I.T.A. No. 626/2011 (Del.), Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT 367 ITR 122 (A.P.) and CIT Vs Harshvarhan Chemicals & Minerals Lt. 259 ITR 212 (Raj.). 6. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and have gone through the material placed on record in the light of facts and circumstances of th…

Shervani Hospitalities Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013

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

…Page 20 of 21 department/authorities and is unable to establish his bonafides on the legal interpretation put forward. 23. Reference can also be made to CIT vs. Brahmputra Consortium Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 339 and Pramod Mittal vs. CIT ITA No. 67/2012 decided on 11th October, 2012 by the Delhi High Court. 24. Recently again, the Supreme Court in the case Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (Supreme Court) (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has observed as under: “…The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assess…