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.

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Stelmet Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6168/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6168/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) A.C.I.T. Circle – 12(3), M/S Stelmet Marketing, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 219, Maker Chamber, V, V. Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaefs8102K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Choksi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…iles Processors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 448(SC) and the decision’s of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Escorts Finance Limited (2009) 328 ITR 44(Del HC) and CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited (2010) 191 Taxman 179(Delhi).Thus, the ld. DR submitted that there is a strict liability for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and hence the assessee firm was rightly subjected to the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO . The ld DR relied upon the o…

ADIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Known As Linklater & Paines), Mumbai

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7081/Mum/2005,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1996-97 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT-(IT)…

Ge Asset Management Incorporatede A/C. General Electric Pension Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6853/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ge Asset Management Ofice Of The Dy. Director Of बनाम/ Incorporated A/C. General Income-Tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/O Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, Pwc House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatg 3740P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.E. Dastur Shri Neeraj Sheth Ms Fereshte D. Sethna Shri Mrunal Parikh Shri Jasbir Chouhan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 245Q(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 GE Asset Management Ofice of the Dy. Director of बनाम/ Incorporated A/c. General Income-tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/o Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, PWC House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा स…

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2655/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2655/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. ACIT- Ward-5(3) Mukund M. Chitale & Co. CA Mumbai. 205,Agarwal,Shyamkamal“A”Building, Vs. Vile-Parle (E),Mumbai-400 057. PAN:AAICS 3712 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.M. Utture (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

M/S. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Sarkar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 43

…orded in the books for the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, I applying the ratio laid down the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 322 ITR 158 (SC) in the case of Reliance Petro Products and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case reported in 328 ITR 44 in the case of CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) delete the penalty levied. 3 Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. N.D. 6. In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 9/10/2015). Dated: 9 /10/2015 *B.Rukhaiyar*…

Smt. Malathi Lakshmikumaran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6013/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Salil Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…June, 2012. Being aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 8th August, 2013 confirmed the order of penalty following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Escort Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Del) and CIT Vs. MAK Data Ltd., ITA No. 415/2012, dt. 22.01.2013. Hence, the assessee is before us with the present appeal. 3. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that in the assessee’s own case on the same issue for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2005-06, this Hon’ble…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd

ITA/1582/2010HC Delhi03 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 271

…nadvertently, in respect of excavators are the depreciation was claimed at 40% instead of 25%. This explanation has been accepted as genuine and bona fide by the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority. In CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 this Court has held that deletion of penalty on the ground of inadvertent error is a finding of fact. Infact, the Assessing Officer did not even contradict the plea of the assessee that excess claim of depreciation was not an inadvertent error. 11. That apart, other element present in this case gives a strong indication that the error w…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd

ITA - 1582 / 2010HC Delhi03 Aug 2011
Section 271

…nadvertently, in respect of excavators are the depreciation was claimed at 40% instead of 25%. This explanation has been accepted as genuine and bona fide by the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority. In CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 this Court has held that deletion of penalty on the ground of inadvertent error is a finding of fact. Infact, the Assessing Officer did not even contradict the plea of the assessee that excess claim of depreciation was not an inadvertent error. 11. That apart, other element present in this case gives a strong indication that the error w…