CIT v. Harprashad & Co Ltd.

328 ITR 53High Court2010#4402 most cited

What is CIT v. Harprashad & Co Ltd. authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when an assessee consciously makes a bogus claim for set-off of losses, which is plainly untenable. The levy of penalty requires the Assessing Officer to demonstrate non-application of mind or that the particulars furnished were inaccurate leading to concealment of income.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Harprashad & Co Ltd. · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · levy of penalty · section 271(1) · section 271(1)(c) · section 271 · set-off of losses · bogus claim · untenable claim · non-application of mind

Issues it is cited on

non application of mindpenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularssection 274concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Harprashad & Co Ltd.

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…n 36(1)(iii) of the Act settled under the VSVS Scheme. Thereafter, the Ld. AO, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. Delhi High Court in cases of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510, Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd., 328 ITR 53 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 levied the penalty of Rs.19,25,64,233/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- observing as under: “7.1.1 On perusal of details filed during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that the assessee ha…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI vs. NTPC LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2800/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A. No. 2800/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 2800/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT, NTPC Limited, NTPC Bhawan, बनाम Special Range : 6, Scope Complex, Vs. New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi–110003 PAN No. AAACN0255D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; & िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Ms. Supriya Mehta, C. A.; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by : Ms. Rinku Singh, [CIT] – D. R.; 01/09/2022 सु…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 293/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 292/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 291/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 290/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

ATUL A. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 289/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.290/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2001-02) ITA No.292/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2003-04) ITA No.294/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2005-06) Shri Atul A Sanghvi vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax B-1607m Sankarseth Palace Central Circle-11, Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 PAN : AHZPS2788P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have b…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5478/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…cision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Zoom communication Pvt. Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT vs NG Technologies Limited (2015)370 ITR 7, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Limited (2010) 328 ITR 53? 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any Minerals Managements Services India P. Ltd. 6 ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the assessee in application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Act (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 has been…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6408/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Circle – 16(2) Ltd., New Delhi Plot –A, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, Pan No. Aadcm 6414 C New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None- Revenue By Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 38, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…he decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT Vs. NG Technologies Limited (2015) 370 ITR 7, CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs. Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53? 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. The case file reveals that on earlier occasion also there was no appearance on behalf of the…

M/S SHER MOHAMMED & CO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT WARD-26(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5986/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5986/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) M/S. Sher Mohammed & Co., Flat No. 23, 6A, Taxi Men Colony, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070. Pan: Aasfs7479M ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit- Ward (26(3), C-11, 5Th Floor, R.No. 501, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... .ितवाद0/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh
Section 271(1)(c)

…8, we find that the assessee had made a categoric submission that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be imposed on estimated additions. To support this contention reliance was placed on following decisions: (1) CIT v/s Harparshad & Co. Ltd. [328 ITR 53 (Del.)] (2) Vidya Sagar Oswal v/s CIT [108 ITR 861 (P&H)]. (3) Samundar Bhan Sadh v/s CIT [188 ITR 638 (P&H)] (4) CIT v/s Md. Warasat Hussain [171 ITR 405 (Patna)] The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made by AO by estimating GP on bogus purchases. The CI…

M/S. VIGNETTE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 980/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. (ii) CIT v Harparshad & Co Ltd [2010] 328 ITR 53 (DELHI) A claim, which is ex facie bogus, may attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). The findings given in the assessment proceedings are relevant and have probative value. Where the assessee produces no fresh evidence or presents any additional or fresh circumstance in the penalty proceedings, he would be deemed to have failed to discharge the…

HELLION FINANCE & LEASING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3814/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Hellion Finance & Leasing Ito 12(2)(4) Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 201/B, Paresh Apartment, Mumbai V. Mandapeshar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400092 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach8539E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 3814/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 09.03.2017, In Appeal No. Cit(A)-20/Ito-12(2)(4)/It-248/2014-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 26.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Hellion Finance & Leasing ITO 12(2)(4) Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 201/B, Paresh Apartment, Mumbai v. Mandapeshar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400092 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACH8539E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019 घोषणा की तारी…

MANJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 30(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 6098/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Naveen KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…hat the assessee had concealed the income and disclosure was not voluntary but under compulsion being cornered by the Assessing Officer. Penalty had to be imposed.” 10.1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harprashad and Company Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 53 (Del.) held as under : “The findings given in assessment proceedings are relevant and have probative value. Where the assessee produces no fresh evidence or presents any additional or fresh circumstance in penalty proceedings, he would be deemed to have failed to discharge the onus placed on him and the levy of penalty could be justified. Even i…

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A. RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D. R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…ry liberal when any debatable or legitimate claim is made, but are very harsh when a claim is made that is not admissible at all. Penalty imposed by the AO.s in such cases have been invariably upheld." 5.4 In the case of CIT v. Harparshad and Co. Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 53, Hon'bie Delhi High. Court has gone one step further and has held that even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but on the basis thereof the claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provision. In that matter a bogus claim to deduction on account of commission paid to director was…

M/S PETROLEUM SPORTS PROMOTION BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4149/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…aying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have.” 4.12 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harprasad & Company ltd, 328 ITR 53 (Del) [2010] has held that if the assessee fails to submit the satisfactory explanation the AO will be justified to levy the penalty and held :- "............ that the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to the issue and the Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively e…

M/S PETROLEUM SPORTS PROMOTION BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4148/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…aying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have.” 4.12 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harprasad & Company ltd, 328 ITR 53 (Del) [2010] has held that if the assessee fails to submit the satisfactory explanation the AO will be justified to levy the penalty and held :- "............ that the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to the issue and the Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively e…

M/S PETROLEUM SPORTS PROMOTION BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4147/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…aying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have.” 4.12 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harprasad & Company ltd, 328 ITR 53 (Del) [2010] has held that if the assessee fails to submit the satisfactory explanation the AO will be justified to levy the penalty and held :- "............ that the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to the issue and the Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively e…

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

ITA 5608/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…or presents any additional or fresh circumstances in the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty shall have to be confirmed against the assessee. We rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harparshad & Company Ltd. , 328 ITR 53 (Delhi) in which it was held as under: "Held, that the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to the issue and the Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively established in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal had failed to take note of the fact that part of the claim a…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2