How many judgments cite CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd.?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd. (336 ITR 257), spanning 2015 to 2023.

CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd.

336 ITR 257High Court2011#9696 most cited

What is CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd. authority for?

Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed solely based on the surrender of income made by the assessee during a survey or assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must provide evidence of actual concealment, as a surrender to 'buy peace' does not automatically imply guilt or warrant a penalty.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd. · penalty for concealment · surrender of income · income tax survey · buying peace · section 271(1)(c) · section 58 Evidence Act · onus of proof

Judgments citing CIT v. Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd.

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…sed. There is no such concealment or non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the income-tax return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax.” CIT vs. Careers Education and Infotech (P.) Ltd. (P & H High Court) [2011] 336 ITR 257 (compilation of case law 21-23) Penalty-Concealment of Income-Surrender of Income during survey- Finding by Tribunal that there was no material from which concealment of income could be inferred- Penalty could not be imposed- Income-Tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1) (c). In every case where surrender is made an inference of concealment of income cannot be…

Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Binna Nitin Parikh V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) W1, Sudantta Apartments Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor 10A Mount Pleasant Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpp1671P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri C.T. Mathews

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ere surrender is made inference of concealment of income must be drawn under 14 Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh S.58 of Evidence Act, cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Punjan & Haryana High Court in the case of Careers Education & Infotech (P) Ltd., (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P&H). Not an iota of evidence was narrated to support the addition made except the surrender made by the assessee itself. When no concealment was ever detected by the AO, no penalty was impossible. Recently, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises vide order dt. 14th July, 2009 held after considering the decision…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…tion that in every case where surrender is made inference of concealment of income must be drawn under S.58 of Evidence Act, cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Punjan & Haryana High Court in the case of Careers Education & Infotech (P) Ltd., (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P&H). Not an iota of evidence was narrated to support the addition made except the surrender made by the assessee itself. When no concealment was ever detected by the AO, no penalty was impossible. Recently, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises vide order dt. 14th July, 2009 held after considering the decision…

Mrs. Sandhya Dhanorkar, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 6, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 42/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…tion that in every case where surrender is made inference of concealment of income must be drawn under S.58 of Evidence Act, cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Punjan & Haryana High Court in the case of Careers Education & Infotech (P) Ltd., (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P&H). Not an iota of evidence was narrated to support the addition made except the surrender made by the assessee itself. When no concealment was ever detected by the AO, no penalty was impossible. Recently, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises vide order dt. 14th July, 2009 held after considering the decision…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6141/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ace and avoid litigation, no penalty could be levied for concealment. The said judgment was later upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 251 ITR 9(SC). He also relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Careers Education and Infotech (Pvt .Ltd.) (2012) 336 ITR 257 (P&H) wherein it has been held that ‘in every case where surrender is made, inference of concealment of income cannot be drawn under section 58 of the evidence Act’. As the AO failed to establish through evidence that the assessee had concealed its income, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs. 38,62,500/- imposed for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6140/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills & Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC), CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT vs S.L.N. Traders (2)(2012) 341 ITR 235(Karnataka) and CIT vs Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P & H). 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. Mahua Sarkar, strongly defended the penalty order by contending that the assessee deposited cash in the accounts, the source of which was not explained by the assessee, therefore, there is clear cut concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, thus, the penalty was rightly…

Options Developrs and Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ce Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 7129/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 132Section 271A

…bunal in JCIT vs M/s Castal Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1269/Kol/2012) and JCIT vs M/s Beco Industries Pvt. Ltd. order dated 24/09/2015, wherein, the decision from Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P & H), the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (358 ITR 593)(SC) were discussed and ultimately the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh 22 M/s Options Developers & Builders Chandra Mittal (Supra), wherein their Lordships have obse…

JCIT(OSD), CC-Xiii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Beco Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1270/KOL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Castal Extrusion Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcc 0160 B) Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Beco Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcb 3271 A)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…supplemented by the assessee by declaring the same in the regular return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for the Asst Year 2010-11 , being the year of search. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of CIT vs Careers Education and Infotech P Ltd (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P&H). “PENALTY – CONCEALMENT OF INCOME – SURRENDER OF INCOME DURING SURVEY – FINDING BY TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FORM WHICH OCNEALMENT OF INCOME COULD BE INFERRED – PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED – INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, s.271(1)(c). In every case where surrender is made an inference of concealment of income cannot be drawn under section…

JCIT(OSD), CC-Xiii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Castal Extrusion(P)Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1269/KOL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

Shri. Muninaga Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

…ns :- i) CIT V Gem Granites, ITA No.504 of 2009 (Madras H C) ii) CIT V K.P. Sampath Reddy 197 ITR 232 (Kar) iii) CIT V Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 357 ITR 565 (Kar). iv) CIT V SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del) v) CIT V Career Education & Infotech, 336 ITR 257 (P&H) 4.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decisions placed reliance upon. 5.1 The Grounds raised at S.Nos.1, 7, 8 & 9 are general in nature and requiring no…