CIT v. Denandas Perumal & Co.

140 ITR 943High Court1983#16775 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Denandas Perumal & Co.

SHRI VIJAY J. FALDU,UPLETA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (4), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…s. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR6 72(All) – Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P&H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P&H) - Harigopal Singh 4. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 3.2 page no. 3 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that from above facts, it is clear that the assessee has shown inaccurate particulars and concealment of his income. This default of the assessee attract…

V.B. BUILDERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…17. 2 3. CIT Vs. Prem Prakash [SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 9492-9494 of 1981 : (1984) 146 ITR fSt.) 3 (SC)]; 4. CIT Vs. Kalicharan Agarwalla & Co. [(1984) 146 ITR 634 (Cal.)]; 5. CIT Vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (Punj); 6. CIT Vs. Devandas Perumal & Co. [(1983) 140 ITR 943 (Bom.)]; 7. CIT, Poona vs. B.D. Ramchandra (Bom.)150 ITR 242; 8. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (HC) (Bom.); 9. CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [2010] 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); & 10.CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P & H). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons…

KNIGHT RIDERS SORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 6 & 7 of appeal are allowed

ITA 5092/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande (AR)For Respondent: Shri Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. No.5237/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Vs. M/s. Knight Riders Sports P. Mumbai Central Range-4 Pr. Ltd. CIT(C)-2 Backstage, Plot No.-612, R. No.1918, 19th Floor, Air 15th Road, Junction of India Building, Nariman Ramkrishna Mission Road, Point, Mumbai-400021. Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054. I.T.A. No.5092/M/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Knight Riders Sports P. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), R. No.1918, 19th Floor, Air Ltd. Backstage, Plot No.-612, 15th India B…

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 357/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…9 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2002] 256 ITR 447 (Punjab & Haryana); Ajay Gupta v. DCIT ITA 357 to 361/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10 Page 4 of 6 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi - trib.)/[2016] 50 ITR(t) 179 (Delhi-Tribunal.); CIT v. Devandas Perumal & co. [1983] 140 ITR 943 (Bombay)/[1982]28CTR 211 (Bombay); ACIT v. E. Bhoopathy [1978] 113 ITR 188; ACIT v. Horilal Kunj Behari Lal [1977] 106 ITR 720 (Allahabad); CIT v. Madhab ram bora [1977] 110 ITR 532 (Gauhati); Rajeev Agarwal, v. ACIT 2012 (9) TMI 442-ITAT, Agra ITA no. 187/Agra/2011. It was also his submission that it is well settled that penalty under section 27…

THAKKAR POPATLAL VELJI SALES LTD.,PANVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…y the Tribunal. Now, question arises, whether penalty will sustain, wherein, the addition was on estimate basis. In our view, mere addition on estimate basis does not conclusively establish the concealment. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Devandas Perumal & Co. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.), CIT vs Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147(Bom), Laxminarain Ramavatar vs ITO (31 TTJ 478)(JP), ITO vs Dr. K.V.R. Krishnaji (40 taxman 222) (Hyd), National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), CIT vs P.K. Narayanan (238 ITR 905) (Ker.), supports our view. 2.3. It is an accepted principle of law that if there is difference of opinion on a part…

CIT v. Denandas Perumal & Co. (140 ITR 943) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax