CIT v. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd.

293 ITR 524High Court2007#12566 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd.

Shri Vivek Talwar, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC - 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5003/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan (DR)
Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…4) (iii) CIT vs. Prem Das (No.1) 248 ITR 234 2001 (P&H) (iv) ACIT vs. Firmenich Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ((TA No. 4654/Mum/2009) (v) Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [(2009) 120 TTJ (LUC) 216] & (vi) CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Mad) 293 ITR 524 Madras. 8. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that if income assessed on estimation basis, no penalty can be levied. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that there is any positive concealment, since addition is based on estimation basis, which itself would not le…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Mumbai vs. Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Assessment Year-2010-11 Acit, M/S Kundan Industries Ltd. Circle-4, Kundan House,Goraipada, बनाम/ Room No.02, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Vasai (E), Dist-Palghar Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No.Aaack6811G (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Assessment Year-2010-11 ACIT, M/s Kundan Industries Ltd. Circle-4, Kundan House,Goraipada, बनाम/ Room No.02, A-wing, 6th Floor, Vasai (E), Dist-Palghar Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 PAN No.AAACK6811G (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri K. Gopal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24/04/2019 26/04/2019 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order:…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2828/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

For Appellant: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mehul K. Patel, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…n on lease datacentre under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to the same. The assessee in support of his contention relied on the following judgements: a) Geeta Priates (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2012) 67 ITR (Guj) 30 b) CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. 293 ITR 524 (Mad). 6. The assessee further submitted that it had not concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particular of income in its income tax return. The claim for the depreciation was made under the bona fide belief. Thus the claim of the assessee may be wrong but that does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5766/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5766/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) M/S. Manz Retail Private Room No. 216-A, Aayakar Limited, Knowledge House, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Mumbai-400020. Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm1978J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2004-05 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271USection 271U(1)(c)

…was arguable, controversial or debatable and if it was not to be so, then it would become impossible for any assesses to raise any claim which is debatable. 4.3.7 In the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. [2007] reported in 293 ITR 524, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT [2007} reported in 291 ITR 519, that penalty can be levied only when the explanation of the assesses was main fide and also that the facts material to the computation o£ income were not disclosed. 4 3.8 In the case of Immort…

Chandra Ramesh, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 273/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…rein, the Company advanced money to its director C K Raganathan for construction of a guest house which was used by the company for rental basis, this was held to be a business transaction. The Madras High Court in the case of Caplin Point Laboratory Ltd., 293 ITR 524 (Mad), wherein the assessee had claimed that the interest income eligible for exemption u/s. 80HHC and 80I, which was disallowed and penalty was levied for concealment of this issue. Madras High Court held that there is no case of concealment as the assessee was under bonafide belief that he was entitled to the exemption and hence claimed the sa…

ITO, Haridwar vs. M/S. Mahima Udyog, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2013/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(i)(c) and it dearly not the intendment of the legislature". In the case of CIT Vs Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd, reported in 293 ITR 524 Madras the assessee company considered interest income as business income and claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC and 801. Claim of assessee was not accepted and addition was made. It was held that, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 9. To my mind the case of the assessee is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…ternational Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 359 ITR 101, CIT vs. DCM Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi HC) >- 335 ITR 558, CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (P&H High Court) >- 349 ITR 112, Karan Raghav Export P Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 293 ITR 524, CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Madras H.C.). >- 352 ITR 394, CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. ( P &H High Court) >- 347 ITR 478, CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. ( P &H High Court). >- 329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 377 ITR 417, Principal CIT vs. G.K. Properties P Ltd. (T & AP) 23) It is well established…

Dilip Shirodkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6607/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…at no penalty should be levied under such circumstances. 1. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd ITA No. 2117 of 2012 (Bombay High Court) 2. Chandrapal Bagga 261 ITR 67 (Raj) 3. ITO vs Roborant Investments (P) Ltd 7 SOT 181 (Mum) 6 4. CIT vs Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd 293 ITR 524 (Mad) 9. We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. This fact is not denied that the land was situated in a village. Further, this fact is also not denied that the impugned land is described as agricultural land in the land records maintained with the local authorities. This fact is also not denied that the assessee belong…

CIT v. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (293 ITR 524) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax