CIT v. International Audio Visual Company

Sms Concast Ag, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

…s. Reshmi Yum Pajwani 4. Supreme Court of India Vs. S. V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC) 5. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.: 322 ITR 158 6. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Audio- Visual Co: 288 ITR 570 7. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd: 327 ITR 543 8. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd: 329 ITR 572 9. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deep Tools (P) Ltd: 274 ITR 603 10. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Dhanabal: 309 ITR 268 11. Punjab & Haryana High…

M/S. Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

…judgment in favour of our submission. a) Where the facts were disclosed but wrong claims for special deduction were made, it was held that it was not a case of concealment of income & penalty could not be imposed. CIT vs International Audio Visual Co. (2007) 288 ITR 570 (Del) CIT vs Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del) b) Merely because a claim for deduction was found inadmissible, penalty does not necessarily follow. Balaji vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 (Kar) Page 2 of 7 ITA 4327/Del/14 Assessment Year 2008-09 Rashi Wears Pvt.Ltd. c) The Supreme Court rationale of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…Mad.) (Mag.) it has been held that when additions were confirmed not for lack of bona fides but for rejecting the explanation of the assessee the penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c). 9. In the case of CIT v. International Audio Visual Co. [2007] 288 ITR 570 (Delhi) it has been held that when all facts relating to claim were disclosed, but claim was not allowed, it does not suggest that particulars of income of the assessee or concealment of his true income has been made. 10. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. DCM Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 101/37 taxmann.com 447 held that (page 105) : "law does no…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…s of judgments, this Court has affirmed the aforesaid legal position and these judgments are :- 1. CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 2. CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International (2007) 288 ITR 670 3. CIT v. International Audio Visual (2007) 288 ITR 570 18. In CIT v Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term “furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. It was observed that “inaccurate particulars” means the details supplied in the return which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth, or erroneous. It was held that…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

…atively determined and crystallized and two opinions prevailed at that time, penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could not be imposed. The Tribunal, in support of this proposition has relied upon the judgment in CIT vs. International Audio Visual Company 288 ITR 570. Therefore, we do not find any error in the orders of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT deleting the penalty on that score. 7. Coming to the imposition of the penalty on disallowance of depreciation, the assessee had claimed depreciation on certain plants and machinery in respect of which book entry was made on 31st March, 2001. When the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd

…atively determined and crystallized and two opinions prevailed at that time, penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could not be imposed. The Tribunal, in support of this proposition has relied upon the judgment in CIT vs. International Audio Visual Company 288 ITR 570. Therefore, we do not find any error in the orders of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT deleting the penalty on that score. 7. Coming to the imposition of the penalty on disallowance of depreciation, the assessee had claimed depreciation on certain plants and machinery in respect of which book entry was made on 31st March, 2001. When the…