CIT v. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd.

329 ITR 483High Court2010#4194 most cited

What is CIT v. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) or 270A should not be imposed when the assessee's claim arises from a debatable legal issue or a difference in legal interpretation, provided the assessee has disclosed material facts.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. · 329 ITR 483 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 270A · penalty · debatable legal issue · difference in legal interpretation · disclosure of material facts

Judgments citing CIT v. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No.234, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Appellant Respondent C.O.No.5/Bang/2024 (In Ita No.1104/Bang/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Akta Jain B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) By The Assessee Arise Out Of Cit(A)’S Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Akta Jain B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…efore the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambhav Media Ltd., (2023) 33 taxmann.com 97 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Devson Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Delhi) deleted the penalty imposed under section 270A of the Act. The CIT(A) held that assessee had disclosed the material facts and details in the return of income and there is no reason to impose penalty under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenu…

ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi vs. Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 712/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Rockwell Automation India Circle-21(2), Pvt. Ltd., 131, Functional New Delhi. Industrial Area, Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi-11091. Pan-Aaccr3791A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti & Ms. Saloni, Ar Respondent By Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…e opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as relied by Ld.CIT(A) in the case of Devsons Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 329 ITR 483 [Del.]. 7. We have heard the contentions of Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:- 4. “I have carefully considered the penalty order and written submissions filed by…

Chunnu International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6422/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…der section 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act and we decline to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 01.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). For this view taken by us, we take support from Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC); Devsons (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del.); Hindustan Coca Cola Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 198 TTJ 0513 (Del.) and M/s. Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 55 CCH 0420 DelTrib. Moreover, as far as penalty levied on disallowance of assesse’s claim u/s 80HHC of I.T. Act is concerned, the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assesse…

Addl/CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1552/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act and we decline to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 01.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). For this view taken by us, we take support from Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC); Devsons (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del.); Hindustan Coca Cola Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Page 48 of 50 ITA No.- 1552/Del/2017 M/s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (2019) 198 TTJ 0513 (Del.) and M/s Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2019) 55 CCH 0420 DelTrib. (E) In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/20…

M/S Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 45

…1 to Section 115JB. Further, according to the ld. AR, whether the crediting of the capital gain to the capital reserve account is proper is a debatable issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devsons P. Ltd., 329 ITR 483 (Del), no penalty could be levied. 5. Per contra, it is the argument of the ld. DR that the assessee had filed appeal against the assessment but subsequently withdrew the same which clearly shows that the assessee had admitted the default and, therefore, in view of decision in the case Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 IT…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2834/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi – Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, 6 ITA Nos.2830 to 2834/Del./2015 CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PC…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2833/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi – Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, 6 ITA Nos.2830 to 2834/Del./2015 CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PC…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2832/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi – Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, 6 ITA Nos.2830 to 2834/Del./2015 CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PC…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi – Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, 6 ITA Nos.2830 to 2834/Del./2015 CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PC…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2830/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi – Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, 6 ITA Nos.2830 to 2834/Del./2015 CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PC…

M/S. Vinculum Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6712/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Upvan Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…creditors to whom the assessee later on paid the amount in question through banking channel. Therefore, no addition could be made. In support of the above contention, he has relied upon decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Devsons (P) Ltd., vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del.) and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO 97 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi-Tribu.). 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee has not even filed the confirmation from the creditors, therefore, addition was rightly made against the assessee. 6. We hav…

Asst CIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jaihind Oil Mills Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2537/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…he above said decision of Pune bench of Tribunal. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) noticed that there exists two possible views in this matter. Accordingly by taking support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Devsons P Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 483), the Ld CIT(A) held that the penalty cannot be levied under these circumstances. 6. The Ld CIT(A) also noticed that the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of addition made due to change in head of income in the case of M/s Superb Royal Travels and Tours P Ltd in ITA No.4147/Mum/2012. He also noticed that the Hon’ble Bombay High C…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…the penalty proceedings, the assessee may furnish fresh evidence which should be considered to prove the bonafide of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 (SC) 2. Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del) 3. Prasanna Enterprises vs. CIT 244 ITR 188 (Ker) 8. The Ld. AR further submitted that the very observation of the Tribunal that the assessee claimed depreciation on the building as alleged to have been admitted by the counsel in the proceeding and then invoking the provision of Section 50 of the Act, is not correct. The fact of the asses…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shivgopal Trading Company P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7375/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54E

…Society Ltd, 31 SOT 474 (Mumbai); Enpake Motors Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 9147Mum/2008]. It has also been held that where a legal issue under consideration is debatable and the assessee makes a claim which is not acceptable, penalty cannot be levied [Devsons Pvt.Ltd. 329 ITR 483(Del.)].” 6. Thereafter learned CIT(A) elaborately quoted from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products .Ld. CIT(A) concluded as under:- “13. Therefore, in view of these decisions and in the background of the facts of the case of the appellant as discussed above, the penalty levied by the AO in the case of the a…

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

ITA 2559/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Mishra, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…Tribunal by way of additional ground vide order dated 20.03.2009 and on the basis of which AO considered the same and imposed the penalty thereon. 20. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the identical issue in case of Devsons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT – (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Delhi) held that “in case the assessee has disclosed each and every fact to the departmental authorities or to Court concerned, then merely because departmental authorities concerned or High Court concerned does not concur with legal stand adopted by assessee, it will not be enough reason to hold that assessee is guilty of concealment of inco…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3287/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the assessee concealed the income by making a false claim as such…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3286/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the assessee concealed the income by making a false claim as such…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3285/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the assessee concealed the income by making a false claim as such…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Terraforce Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5129/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…ecisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 705, CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Devsons P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 329 ITR 483 (Delhi) and Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) to reach the conclusion on facts that merely a wrong claim of deduction does not amount to furnish of inaccurate particulars. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances in this matter, the Ld. CIT (A) reached the conclusion that it’s a case where the assessee…

The ACIT, Cicle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Fine Line Circuits Company, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1742/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2017AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Nirmit Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Roopchand, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…laim, no penalty should be levied. Similar view has been taken by the judicial authorities in the cases of Millennium International v. ACIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 16 (Delh Trib), CIT v Amtek Auto Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 394 (P&H) and Devsons (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 329 ITR 483 (Delhi). The gist of these cases is that when a legal issue arises for consideration, which is debatable but the claim made by the assessee is not accepted, there is no justification to invoke the penalty provisions u/s. 271(1)(c). Divergent legal views on legal interpretation of a statute can take place, but it is not necessary that there should…