CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd.

259 ITR 212High Court2003#4009 most cited

What is CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. authority for?

The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not permissible when a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the High Court or Supreme Court.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. · 259 ITR 212 · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · substantial question of law · appeal under section 260A · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · incriminating material

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 250Section 260A

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomedocuments seizedlevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 133asection 27section 14asection 271incriminating material

Judgments citing CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd.

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…son given by the AO for disallowance of deduction it that assessee earned forward contract gain which has no nexus with the activity specifically eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A on the export profit. 1. CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (P&H) 4. Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Del) 5. CIT vs. EICON International (13) Ltd. 166 Taxman 12 (Del) 6. CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd. 177 Taxman 37 (Del) 7. CIT vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd. 211 CTR 543 (Del)…

Rawal Pindi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hardipender Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Singh, CIT DR and Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ce Petro products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. 348 ITR 339 (Del.), CIT Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. I.T.A. No. 626/2011 (Del.), Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT 367 ITR 122 (A.P.) and CIT Vs Harshvarhan Chemicals & Minerals Lt. 259 ITR 212 (Raj.). However, on the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the assessment order passed by AO, 5 ITA No.1053/Del./2010 quantum order passed by CIT (A), penalty order and penalty order affirmed by ld. CIT (A). 6. Undisputedly, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2006, addition of Rs.50,82,976/- was made out of which ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

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

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and hence the levy of penalty does not arise. The assessee relied on the following case laws:- 1. Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT (2003) 261 ITR 67 (Raj.) 2. CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd., 259 ITR 212 (Raj.) 3. CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 4. DCIT v. G.M. Gupta (2003) SOT 230 (Del) 5. Vinod Kapur v. ITO (2003) 127 Taxman 53 6. CIT v. Honeywell Dace (India) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 169 (Del) ITA 7053/Mum/2013 7 7. Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 8. T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007)292 ITR 11(SC) 9. CIT v. Reliance Petro…

Biren Shah, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.16(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7462/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7462/Mum/2011 & I.T.A.757/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Biren Shah बनाम/ Dcit 16(3) 1, Phoenix, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Svp Road, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amxps9908A

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 143(2)

…etroproducts P. Ltd. and 329 ITR 572 (Del) CIT Vs. Dharampal Pramchand and 253 ITR 630 (P&H) CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. It is also argued that where two views are possible therefore in the said circumstances no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in 259 ITR 212 (Raj.) CIT Vs. Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. On the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The appeal of the assessee against the quantum has been upheld. In this regard the matter of controversy has been discussed above while deciding the ITA No.7462/M/20…

Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5655/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., 5/66, Kc Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, House, 3Rd Floor, Padam Singh Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0343R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Syed Nasir, Acit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. SPL Industries Ltd., 5/66, KC Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, House, 3rd Floor, Padam Singh Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACS0343R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Syed Nasir, ACIT (DR) Date of hearing 19.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 10.06.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3469/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2001-02 Dcit, Circle 15(1), Vs. Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcr 9137 R ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable , cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Held, yes" Further, I find that the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd., 259 ITR 212, as extracted below, would be relevant in this case. "While rejecting the application under section 256(1), the Tribunal has considered and reproduced the facts stated in penalty order. The relevant part of the -Tribunal's order reads as under: "The consistency of the assessee's conduct is further established from the fact that it filed an appeal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)

…he case of CIT vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd, 288 ITR 585 (Del) that no penalty was leviable. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our notice which may prove that the Revenue detected the concealment. In CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd (259 ITR 212) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that when the assessee has claimed some amount though that is debatable in such cases, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars for evasion of the tax. ” In view of the above and since no contrary binding decision was cited by…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Navneet Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: None PresentFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…he department and also to avoid the litigation and the assessee also relied on the various case laws to support his claim that no penalty can be levied on surrendered income and the case laws are as under :- (i) CIT V s Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd, 259 ITR 212 [2003] (Raj) 3 CIT Vs Adamkhan, 223 ITR 264 [1997] (Mad) (iii) Akshay Bhander Vs CIT, 220 ITR 325 [1996] (Gau) 7.1 From the above, we find AO has not detected any concealment of income either in the return of income or in the books of accounts of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the case of the assessee is also supported by the case of C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 5062/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Kesang Y Shirpa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. 348 ITR 339 (Del.), CIT Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. I.T.A. No. 626/2011 (Del.), Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT 367 ITR 122 (A.P.) and CIT Vs Harshvarhan Chemicals & Minerals Lt. 259 ITR 212 (Raj.). 6. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and have gone through the material placed on record in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Undisputedly, penalty proceedings as well as assessment proceedings are to be decided independently and the penalty proceedings are not to be influenced by the asse…