How many judgments cite CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (314 ITR 215), spanning 2011 to 2023.

CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation

314 ITR 215High Court2009#10510 most cited

What is CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed merely because an addition to income is sustained. The assessee must have concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · addition sustained · omission · negligence · deliberate act

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “B” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.564/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Ginni Gold Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, बनाम Shop No. 403, Fourth Floor, Central Circle : 28, Vs. 2633-2634, Bank Street, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. PAN No. AACCG9728Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Anup Mehta, C. A.; Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Sr. D. R.; : 21/08/2023 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ D…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

…Officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore no penalty could be levied. (ii) Poonam Mable Pvt Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 157 TTJ 59 (Jodh) (iIi) CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H) (iv) CIT Vs Sangur Vanaspati Mills Ltd (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P & H) (v) CIT Vs Jagabandhu Prasanna Kumar Ruplal Sen Poddar (1982) 133 ITR 156 (Cal.) (vi) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 11. Imposition of penalty is unlawful: - It is submitted that in this case the Learned Assessing Officer first levied…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5882/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5882/Mum/2009 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…The appeal of the assessee on substantial question of law with regard to disallowance under the provisions had been admitted by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation 314 ITR 215 held as under : “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the deduction claimed by the assessee was legitimate and bonafide in terms of the conflicting determination of law on the proposition in question. The categorical finding at the hands of the Tribunal in its order was that the assessee had disclosed the entire facts without having concealed any i…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri K V V Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 271(1)(c)

…e committed by the assessee for levying the penalty. The AO himself is confused with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation [2009] [314 ITR 215 (P&H)] distinguishing Dharmendra Textiles (supra) held that where assessee has claimed a deduction disclosing all material facts, but the deduction was 20 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam disallowed though the conflicting decisions exist on the subject, penalty cannot be lev…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Siripurapu Chinatalli, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 271(1)(c)

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…appeal of the assessee on substantial question of law with regard to disallowance under the provision had been admitted by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation 314 ITR 215 held as under:- “Held. Dismissing the appeal that the deduction claimed by the assessee was legitimate and bonafide in terms of the conflicting determination of law on the proposition in question. The categorical finding at the hands of the Tribunal in its order was that the assessee had disclosed the entire facts without having concealed any inc…

M/S Mrs. Bector Food Specialities Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Yoginder Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s Bector Food Specialities Ltd. Vs. The DCIT B-XXXIII/ 324, G.T. Road Circle-III (West), Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN No. AABCM9495K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. Subhash Aggarwal Respondent By : Shri. Yoginder Mittal Date of hearing : 11/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16/07/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana dt. 16/01/2017. 2. I…

Sharsh Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…the appeal of the assessee is allowed." - DCIT vs. PEC Ltd., 2010-TIOL-50-ITAT-DEL. A. Y. 2004-05 "6 ... .It is by now settled law that only because addition is sustained, the penalty is not automatic ...." - CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H) 20 "24. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue was, that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed on the respondent assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not sustainable in law because of the clear judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dhar…

M/S. Vikramaditya Education Society, Rohtak vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

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

ITA 1443/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 144Section 234B

…missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. UOI reported in 327 ITR 73 (P&H) and CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation reported in 314 ITR 215 (P&H) and not allowing exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. 3 That without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that income of the appellant is also eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has otherwise to erred both in law and…

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

ITA - 622 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Section 158Section 158BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…Processors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC); CIT v. Reliance 2011:DHC:3138-DB ITA No. 622/2008 Page 10 of 14 Petroprdoucts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H); CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises, (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H); Ms.Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) and CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 585 (Delhi). 11. The crux of the ratio of above decisions is that a mere omission or ne…