CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd.

328 ITR 44High Court2010#1005 most cited

What is CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 if they make a claim that is incorrect in law, wholly without basis, and the explanation furnished for such a claim is not bona fide.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. · Escorts Finance Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) · penalty for inaccurate particulars · incorrect claim · no bona fide explanation · claim without basis · levy of penalty · Section 54F

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 453226 CTR 105

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27section 143indiatotal incomecompanybusinesssection 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd.

M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ther judicial precedents’ copies whereof were filed during appellate proceedings in ITAT. The Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) supported the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance in the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Delhi). (3) We have heard both sides patiently. We have perused all materials on our records carefully. We have considered all judicial precedents brought to our attention by the two sides. We have also considered the judicial precedents mentioned in the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T…

Late Purnima Bhandari Through L/H Shri N.K. Dewan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6365/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Late Purnima Bhandari Vs. Dcit, Through L/H Shri N.K. Circle-14(2), C.R. Building, Dewan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 45, Golf Links, New Delhi Pan :Aaebp4567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri B.K. Anand, Ca Respondent By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Purnima Bhandari Vs. DCIT, through L/H Shri N.K. Circle-14(2), C.R. Building, Dewan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 45, Golf Links, New Delhi PAN :AAEBP4567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri B.K. Anand, CA Respondent by Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 17.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 30.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the legal heir of the assessee has been filed against the order dated 23/09/2015 passed by the…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 3 7. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on re…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rbm Pati Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 40A(2)(b)

…recting the error either at the time of original assessment proceedings or at the time of re-assessment. 1(c). Whether the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Zoom Communications [327 ITR 510 (Del)] and Escorts Finance [328 ITR 44] wherein it has been held that the plea of “oversight" was not acceptable in the era of no-scrutiny assessment.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at a loss of Rs. 19,22,47,512/-. Assessment order u/s 143(3) was completed on 7.12.2009, whereby the declared loss was reduced to Rs. 16,78,25,520/- by making…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…here Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified . 10.CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified, 11.CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227…

Institute of Haematology, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. T. R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…(SC) " K. C. Builders Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) " CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) " T. Ashok Pai Vs CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) " CIT Vs Brahma Purta Construction Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 349 (Del.) " CIT Vs Escort Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sidhartha Enterprises (2009) 184 Taxman 460 (P&H) " CIT Vs Sania Mirza (2013-ITRV-HC-AP-002) " CIT Vs Balaji Distilleries Ltd. (2003) 126 Taxman 264 (Mad.) 4 Institute of Haematology " CIT Vs Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013-ITRV-HC- Mum-030) 6. It was further submitted that the explanation given by the assessee in the penalty pr…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxmann.com 302. 9. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case could not justify the expenses claimed by it in the Profit & Loss Account and has surrendered the income during the course of asses…

Swadesh Textiles P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw [2013] 35 taxmann.com 95 (Bom.), CIT v. Sania Mirza [2013] 40 taxmann.com 17 (AP), CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), Lequidz India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 558/Hyd/2011], CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del.), Udayan Mukharjee v. CIT 291 ITR 318 (Cal.), CIT v. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. (Madras High Court), Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1985 of 2006. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that the computation of book profit was not filed along with the return of income and the assessee filed it during the course…

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

…Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (SC) v. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) vi. MAK Data P. Ltd. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) vii. B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC) viii. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) 9 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on the records. Since the Additional Grounds are legal in nature and can be taken at any stage, we are admitting the additional grounds filed by the Assessee. As regards the Additional Ground (i) relating to the time barring penalty order, it can be seen th…

Vikas Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 2332/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Vikas Gupta, Vs ACIT, 4, Friends Colony West, Circle-24(1), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG3152D ITA No. 6550/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vikas Gupta, Vs ACIT, 4, Friends Colony West, Circle-28(1), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG3152D Assessee by : Ms. Roli Chaubey, CA Revenue by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 ORDER Per N. K.…

Quantum Coders Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5766/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Quantum Coders Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 501-502, Plot No. 1, Dda Ward-14(4), Building, Distt. Centre, Janak New Delhi Puri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacq1197M Assessee By : Ms. Devina Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) " CIT Vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co. 91 ITR 467 (Ker.) " CIT Vs India Seafood 105 ITR 708 (Ker.) " Steel Ingots Ltd. Vs CIT 296 ITR 228 (MP) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of inco…

Suresh Jindal, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified. 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…on in respect of income-tax was a "human bonafide clerical mistake" as the assessee was a firm not having expert chartered accountants on its payroll. In appeal before the High Court, the department relied on Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 and Escorts Finance 328 ITR 44 where it was held that as under no circumstances could an assessee have claimed provision for tax as a deduction, penalty was imposable. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal: “As regards depreciation, the property was let out for the first time in the latter part of the A Y. As such, the benefit of inadvertence or mechanical or repetitive…

Abr Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6236/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjeeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable. to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified 7. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified.” 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant rec…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…[2010]233 CTR 465; MAK Data P.Ltd. vs CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del)/ 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 8. We have carefully gone through the contentions of either side and perused the material papers on record. Or…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…lasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT T296 ITR 228] 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 10. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 11. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT 2001 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)].” He fur…

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 790/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar Matta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…e Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable. to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified 7. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified.” 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Author…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…depreciation raised by the assessee the penalty was rightly imposed by the A.O, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) and CIT-4, Vs. Escorts Finance ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 P a g e | 8 ITA No. 1800/Mum/2013 AY: 2004-05 DCIT Vs. M/s Somaiya Properties (Del). Per contra, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had by way of a bonafide mistake wrongly claimed depreciation on the co- generation plant at the rate of 100% as was available upto A.Y. 2002- 03, as against the amended rate of 80% which was applicabl…

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 100/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 HARISH NARINDER SALVE, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 37(1), 6E & 6F, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, ROOM NO. 2005, NEW DELHI – 11 0001 E-2, CIVIC CENTER, (PAN: AHFPS7386B) JL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002 (RESPONDENT) (ASSESSEE) Assessee by: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADV. Revenue by:SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi re…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.355/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another Vs CIT (2007) 291 ITR 122 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " CIT Vs Zoom Communications Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del.) " ACIT-CC-II(5) Vs Smt. J. Mythili (2014) 49 ITD 275 (Chennai) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “1. Your honour, as stated herein above during the course of the…