CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd.

329 ITR 572High Court2010#7135 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd.

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

…Ltd.: 322 ITR 158 6. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Audio- Visual Co: 288 ITR 570 7. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd: 327 ITR 543 8. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd: 329 ITR 572 9. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deep Tools (P) Ltd: 274 ITR 603 10. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Dhanabal: 309 ITR 268 11. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises: 322 ITR 80 12. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deban International Ltd.: 2 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi) 13.…

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 5059/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…of the claim could not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c):- 1. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd 322 ITR 158 SUPREME COURT 11. Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT I.T.A. 804 of 2011 DELHI HIGH COURT 2. CIT v. M/S Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 329 ITR 572 DELHI HIGH COURT 3. CIT v. SOCIETEX ITA 1190/2011 DELHI HIGH COURT 4. KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. v. CIT ITA 1152/2011 DELHI HIGH COURT 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.13,23,400/- made by the AO u/s 50C was on account of difference between the stamp duty value…

SANJIV KRISHNAKANT ASHTAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6579/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay: 2009-10. I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Kishore PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)

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

…e brought his income earned abroad to Indian taxation. Whereas the fact remains is that the appellant was indeed abroad during those impugned 30 days also. b. The same position was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2010)329 ITR 572 (Del). C. In the case of CIT Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 160 (Kar.) the Hon'ble Karnataka High court held that imposition of penalty is not automatic. It is only when there is attempt to evade tax by offering explanation which is found to be false or not bonafide, that penalty can be imposed. In the present case, the appe…

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kailash Mangal (Addl.CIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80ASection 80ISection 80J

…e. In fact, every legal disallowance under the provisions of the Act could not lead to the conclusion that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. We also find in the case of CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 572/202 Taxman 94 (Mag.)/11 taxmann.com 437 (Delhi), it was held that merely because the assessee had 12 ITA 75/JP/2019_ M/s Shiv Kr. Sushil Kr. Tea Enterprises P Ltd. Vs ACIT claimed deduction u/s.80IA and 80IB of the Act which claim was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty proceedings as the same could not be…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6458/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajnit Singh, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…to, do not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or thereby concealment of income. Further reliance is placed on the following judgements: (ii) Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Delhi) (iii) CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. [2011] 329 ITR 572 (Delhi) (iv) CIT v. Societex [2013] 212 Taxman 73 (Delhi) (Mag.) (v) Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) (Mag.) 6. Moreover, the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 does not specify the limb under which the penalty was levied. In this regard, it is submitted that it is a well settled law, the AO, while issuing notice u/s…

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ed that Vaibhav Healthcare Private Limited was having only industrial undertaking and that too at Baddi,HP. The assessee relied on the following judgements:- a) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) b) CIT v. Dharmpal Premchand Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 572 (Del) c) CIT v. Krishna Maruti Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 547 (Del) d) CIT v. SSP Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 643 (P&H) e) ITO v. Parikh Investment & Development P. Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 537 Mumbai I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 f) Equest India P. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 136 TTJ (Mumbai) g) Yogesh R. Desai v CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 101 h) Glorious R…

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

ITA 155/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. & Shri Sharad AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 50CSection 80I

…hing of inaccurate particulars and not on the basis of change of opinion. 3.3 The ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs 5 Assessment year 2005-06 Dharampal Premchand Ltd. reported in 329 ITR 572 (Del) wherein similar penalty deleted by the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by placing reliance on the apex court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 67 (…

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2012[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri NavinVerma, ACA

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…enue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reasons, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. " In CIT Vs. DharampalPremchand Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 572 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held that merely because the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IA and 80IB, which was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c) as the same cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 290 ITR…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…the claim made. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions: (i). CIT v. Reliance Petro Product (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (ii). ShervanJ .Hospitalities Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Delhi) . (iii). CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. [2011] 329 ITR 572 (Delhi) (iv). CIT v. Societex [2013] 212 Taxman 73 (Delhi) (Mag.) (v). Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) (Mag.) 6.4 The ld. AR further submitted that it is well established principle of law that penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings, and the consideration in penalty proceedings…

SHIVAM STEEL & TUBES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 5(3),

ITA 4691/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premises Co.Op. Soc. Mumbai. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aadcs 9345 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Dadia सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03.6.2014 Of Cit(A)-9 Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Steel Tubes & Furniture Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.9.2009 ,Declaring Total Income Rs.1.24Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3),On 5.12.2012,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.1.35Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premi…

BIREN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 7462/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7462/Mum/2011 & I.T.A.757/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Biren Shah बनाम/ Dcit 16(3) 1, Phoenix, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Svp Road, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amxps9908A

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(2)

…that the assessee had raised the bonafide claim of interest but the same was not accepted therefore in the said circumstances no penalty is liable to be leviable in view of the law settled in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. and 329 ITR 572 (Del) CIT Vs. Dharampal Pramchand and 253 ITR 630 (P&H) CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. It is also argued that where two views are possible therefore in the said circumstances no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in 259 ITR 212 (Raj.) CIT Vs. Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. On the other hand learned representative of the department…

M/S. GREENFIELDS PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6263/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(12)(c)

…He placed his reliance upon various decisions which are as under: i) CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (S.C.); ii) ACITVs Sahara India Investment Corpn. Ltd. (2010), 04 ITR (Trib) 284 (Del.); iii) CITVs Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2010), 329 ITR 572 (Del.); iv) M. S. Bindra & Sons P. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 125 (Del.); v) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. s DCIT (2012), 14 ITR (Trib), (Del.); vi) CI Vs Mahavir Irrigation P. Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 241 (Del.; and vii) Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2012), 349 ITR 112 (Del.) 3.1 Ld. A.R. submitted that the application dated 31.10.2006 was rejected by the D…

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5902/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…ars of income in this respect and addition was merely on the difference of opinion. The learned Authorized Representative in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dharmpal Premchand reported in 329 ITR 572, wherein the finding of the Tribunal that allocation of expenses between the head office and the unit would always be a debatable issue, was affirmed and the deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was accordingly held to be justified. 5.3 On the contrary, learned Sr. Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the authorities below. 5.4 We…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SRF LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

…relied on a catena of decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCIL Vs. Arrpl Triveni [JV] Vs. ACIT [2011] 16 Taxmann 384 [Del], CIT Vs. Vamchampigons and Agro Product 284 ITR 408, CIT VS. Dharampal Premchand Ltd [2011] 329 ITR 572 and CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd [2010] 189 Taxmann 322 [SC]. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and arrived at his conclusion by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts [P] Ltd [su…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…lty in Shervani Hospitalities Limited versus Commissioner of 2013:DHC:4611-DB ITA No. 71/2013 Page 16 of 21 Income Tax, (2011) 329 ITR 572 Delhi, Karan Raghav Exports versus CIT, (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Delhi), CIT versus Zoom Communication Private Limited, (2010) 327 ITR 510(Delhi). One cannot be oblivious to divergent views on legal interpretation of tax provisions and that uniformity and consistency of opinion on aspects of law may not be possible. Therefore, penalty cannot be…

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013

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

…hen the assessee had furnished full details in the return itself and the claim is a debatable, reasonably plausible or may well have been accepted. (See CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. 2010 322 ITR 158 (SC), CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 2011 329 ITR 572 (Del.), CIT vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2011 decided on 19.07.2012, by this Court). In Karan Raghav Exports vs. CIT (2012)349 ITR 112(Del.), it has been observed as under:- “14. On the second aspect, we record that a wrong deduction claimed can amount to furnishing of incorrect particulars. However, that is not the issue 2013:DHC:2816-DB…