CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.

334 ITR 367High Court2011#14045 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 10(38)Section 131 Section 133A Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.

M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)1, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 527/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. AR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…nnot survive in such a case. 11. It is pertinent to note that this Court in similar cases [CIT v. Liquid Investment Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 240 of 2009, dated 5-10-2010], CIT v. H B Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 190/211 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2011] 334 ITR 367 and CIT v. Thomson Press India Ltd. [IT Appeal 426,440 of 2013] has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the same ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable. The relevant portion of the orders in Liquid Investment Ltd (supra) and Thomson Press India Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:— (A) Order dated…

M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)1, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. AR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Kiran Bala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…td wherein, it has been held that where the question of law raised by the assessee has been framed and admitted in the circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty cannot, justify. Similar view has further been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the 334 ITR 367 wherein it has been held in para No. 3 that once the appeal preferred by the assessee has been admitted that would show that substantial question of law on the income addition is involved and thus the issue is clearly debatable. We are also aware that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary view in [2015] 58 taxmann.com 334 (Gujarat)/[201…

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…5 Nagaiah Kekkireni vs. ITO 11. It is pertinent to note that this Court in similar cases [CIT v. Liquid Investment Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 240 of 2009, dated 5-10- 2010], CIT v. H B Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 190/211 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2011] 334 ITR 367 and CIT v. Thomson Press India Ltd. [IT Appeal 426,440 of 2013] has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the same ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable. The relevant portion of the orders in Liquid Investment Ltd (supra) and Thomson Press India Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow :— (A) Order date…

Income Tax( Central)- 2 vs. M/S Harsh International Pvt. Ltd

ITA/620/2019HC Delhi22 Dec 2020

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…herein, it has been held that where the question of law raised by the assessee has been framed and admitted in the circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty cannot, justify. Similar view has further been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the 334 ITR 367 wherein it has been held in para No. 3 that once the appeal preferred by the assessee has been admitted that would show that substantial question of law on the income addition is involved and thus the issue is clearly debatable. We are also aware that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary view in [2015] 58 taxmann.com 334 (Gujarat…

Blue Star Ltd (Blue Star Infotech Ltd Now Merged With Blue Star Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Blue Star Limited (Blue Star The Assistant Commissioner Infotech Limited Now Merged Of Income Tax Circle 9(2)(1), बिधम/ With Blue Star Limited) Mumbai. Band Box House, 4Th Floor, Vs. 254-D, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai Maharashtra 400030 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacb6385J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…asis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act: • CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT], • CIT v. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited [1993] 21 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court); • CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.[2011] 334 ITR 367 (Delhi HC) • CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd [2013] 352 ITR 394 (P&H)(HC) • CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd [2003] 259 ITR 212 (HC Raj) • CIT V. Sivananda Steels Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 683 (HC Madras) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds, as also all reliefs consequential thereto…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…lowance made in respect of such issue. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. ITA No. 232/2005 (Del), CIT vs. Liquid Investments Ltd. ITA No. 240/2009 and CIT v HB Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. 334 ITR 367. It was further submitted that even otherwise since the issue is highly debatable legal issue therefore no penalty is leviable in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT v Reliance Petrporducts (P) Ltd. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. It was also contended that the aforesaid claim made by the appellant was very much within the knowledge of the As…