CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447High Court2002#3934 most cited

What is CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · deletion of penalty · additions on estimate · no concrete evidence of concealment · estimated yield · estimated price · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)books or books of accountsection 2(12a)penalty under section 271bdeletion of penaltysection 44aasection 18section 271bsection 44asection 271apenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…herein. It was held that when the addition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H), where the addition was made by the AO by estimating the yield of super phak as well as of chhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said ord…

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

…dition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of Bright Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447, where the addition was made by the Assessing Officer by estimating the yield of super phak as well as of chhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the ITAT and the appeal filed by the revenue…

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…essee would invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. [Para 10] Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed." 5.3 It has been held in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H) following CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) that in a case of addition based upon estimation, there can be no penalty unless the Income-tax Department brings something on record to indicate that there has been concealment on the part of the assessee. 5.4 It has been…

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

TIRUPATI BALAJI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4090/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumartirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Opp Babar Pur Mandi, G. T. Ward-1, Road, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact5716B Assessee By : Shri Satyam Aneja, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06//2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…h of Tribunal including the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 and judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Dhillon Rice Mills reports as (2002) 256 ITR 447 P H3 the penalty may kindly be cancelled. 5. Replying to the above, the Sr. DR supported the penalty as well as first appellate order confirming the penalty and submitted that since the addition had been confirmed and there was no doubt that the income to the extent of claim of loss has been concealed by the assessee therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)…

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.14,40,342/- u/s 271(1)(c)…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 934/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.14,40,342/- u/s 271(1)(c)…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 933/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.14,40,342/- u/s 271(1)(c)…

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1518/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 94

…garding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Decision of the Gujarat High Court affirmed." 7. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of CIT Vs Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 (P. & H.) and in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (PH) held that "no penalty for concealment leviable where income assessed is a mater of estimate". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 - PIOL - 63 - SC held that "on every demand penalty is not automatic". 8. Considering the facts o…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…herein. It was held that when the addition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H), where the addition was made by the AO by estimating the yield of super phak as well as ofchhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the. CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said ord…

SHRI AMIT CHANDRAKANT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4824/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4824/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2010-11) ITA No. 4826/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Amit Chandrakant Sanghvi DCIT Central Circle-2(1) Flat No. 002, B Wing, Priyanka Mumbai Complex, Alkote Road, Vs. Nalasopara, Thane-401209 PAN: BCGPS2994L Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala (AR) Respondent by : Shri Michael Jerald (DR) Date of Hearing : 05.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2020 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN…

SATISH SARAF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…j) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (NIP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)] (viii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. DM/o/7 Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] Reliance is further placed on the following decisions of various High Courts/ Tribunals wherein, it has been categorically held that penalty cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on the basis, of estimation of profit rate. These decisions are directly applicable to the facts of assesses's case and hence, no penalty could be impose…

M/S SHIV KUMAR BAIGARA AND COMPANY ,UDHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 357/ASR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.357/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. P.N.Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…not be said that the assessee had concealed, or otherwise furnished inaccurate, particulars of its’ income. The decisions by the jurisdictional High Court, as in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 (P&H), would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, accordingly direct the deletion of the impugned penalty. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on March 29, 2019 (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 29.03.2019 /PK/ Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: M/s. S…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. DALJIT SINGH, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…aterial available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below and observed that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, while following the propositions laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 (P&H), CIT vs. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. ITO [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) whereby, the jurisdictional High Court has held that penalty would not be exigible merely because an addition is made on estimate basis. We do not find any contrary material/substance either on record or in the submissions of the Ld…

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)

…3 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana) ; CIT v. Aero traders (p.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 31 6 (Delhi); Harigopal Singh vs. CIT[2002] 125taxman242 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana); CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills [2003]127taxman529 (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] 1…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2