CIT v. Chemiequip Ltd.

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

…note that the Hon`ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chaurasia v CIT (288 ITR 329(All) has held that the finding recorded in quantum of appeal are relevant for imposing penalty. Further reliance is placed on CIT v Chemiequipment Ltd (2004) 265 ITR 265 (Bom) wherein the Hon`ble High Court has held that where assessee having fully enhanced losses by not offering an amount to tax and by claiming wrong deduction under section 80HHC and offered these amounts to tax only in response to notice under section, penalty is liable. These decisions supports the case of the AO. 17. Further Reliance is p…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

…P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT, 243 ITR 776 (Kar.) - Karnataka High Court rejected assessee’s reference on the sole ground that Prithipal’s case relates to assessment year 1970-71 and prior, therefore, to the 1976 amendment. ii. CIT v. Chemiequip Ltd., 265 ITR 265 (Bomb.) \026 Bombay High Court has held that after 1.4.1976, Explanation 4(a) permits the charge on an assessee whose loss has been reduced in assessment proceedings distinguishing Prithipal Singh’s case and also refers to the amendment in Section 271(1)(c) by Finance Act, 2002. In this judgment, there is no discussion or reasoning either o…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

…P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT, 243 ITR 776 (Kar.) - Karnataka High Court rejected assessee’s reference on the sole ground that Prithipal’s case relates to assessment year 1970-71 and prior, therefore, to the 1976 amendment. ii. CIT v. Chemiequip Ltd., 265 ITR 265 (Bomb.) \026 Bombay High Court has held that after 1.4.1976, Explanation 4(a) permits the charge on an assessee whose loss has been reduced in assessment proceedings distinguishing Prithipal Singh’s case and also refers to the amendment in Section 271(1)(c) by Finance Act, 2002. In this judgment, there is no discussion or reasoning either o…