CIT v. Harshvardhan

336 ITR 261High Court2011#11513 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 22section 2(15)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)delay in filing appealfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 12aaconcealment of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Harshvardhan

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several consid…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several consid…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several consid…

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…M/s Aakar Associates ITA No. 3516/Ahd/2010 c. Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several consid…

V R A Cotton Mills., Abohar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 10/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 194CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 80I

…en accepted by the Revenue and mere making of claim, which is not maintainable by law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4.4 The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Raj Overseas ( {2011} 336 ITR 261 {P&H} ) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) was leviable in respect of the deduction wrongly claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of income from Duty Draw Back. 4.5 While coming to the instant case, as the Revenue Department did not find the claim of the Asseeee as maintainable, however mere making claim by the Asseeee whi…

Shiva Mint Industries, Jammu vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…t been accepted by the Revenue and mere making of claim, which is not maintainable by law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Even Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Raj Overseas ( {2011} 336 ITR 261 {P&H} ) held that no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) was leviable in respect of the deduction wrongly claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of income from Duty Draw Back. While coming to the instant case, as the Revenue Department did not find the claim of the Asseeee as maintainable, however mere making claim by the Asseeee which otherw…

M/S Shiva Mint Industries, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 649/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…t been accepted by the Revenue and mere making of claim, which is not maintainable by law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Even Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Raj Overseas ( {2011} 336 ITR 261 {P&H} ) held that no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) was leviable in respect of the deduction wrongly claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of income from Duty Draw Back. While coming to the instant case, as the Revenue Department did not find the claim of the Asseeee as maintainable, however mere making claim by the Asseeee which otherw…

Nadir A Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 4859/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4Section 44ASection 45

…ted 28th February, 2014). It is also argued that in the present facts and circumstances there are two possible views, therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) and CIT Vs. Raj Overseas 336 ITR 261 (P&H). It is also argued that if the claim is not correct then the same cannot be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). However, on the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by…

Nadir A. Modi, Mumbai vs. Jt.CIT-11(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 2996/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4Section 44ASection 45

…ted 28th February, 2014). It is also argued that in the present facts and circumstances there are two possible views, therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) and CIT Vs. Raj Overseas 336 ITR 261 (P&H). It is also argued that if the claim is not correct then the same cannot be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). However, on the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by…