CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

360 ITR 580High Court2014#913 most cited

What is CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries authority for?

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimation basis, absent concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

117

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries · 360 ITR 580 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty on estimation · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · levy of penalty · section 274 · deletion of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)deletion of penaltypenalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)levy of penaltysection 274

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISINGS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 76/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.75/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year:2010-2011) (Assessment Year:2011-2012) M/s. Perg Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Sahar Plaza, Bonanza B-111, J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059. Maharashtra [PAN:AACCP5115A] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, …………. Respondent M. K. Road, Mumbai–400020. Maharashtra. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Sameer G. Dalal For the Respondent/D…

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISING PVT LTD, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 75/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.75/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year:2010-2011) (Assessment Year:2011-2012) M/s. Perg Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Sahar Plaza, Bonanza B-111, J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059. Maharashtra [PAN:AACCP5115A] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, …………. Respondent M. K. Road, Mumbai–400020. Maharashtra. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Sameer G. Dalal For the Respondent/D…

ITO WARD-14(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VINIPUL INORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7970/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…he bogus purchases. Therefore, the entire addition for the year under consideration has been made solely on the basis of estimates. 7. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.), held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been 4 expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition…

HITESH JAYANTILAL MEHTA(HUF),KALBADEVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8369/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

…pellate proceedings. Therefore, the entire addition for the year under consideration has been made solely on the basis of estimates. 10. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.), held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 8074/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the Tribunal to 5%. Therefore, the entire addition for the years under consideration has been made solely on the basis of estimates. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.), held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 8073/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…y the Tribunal to 5%. Therefore, the entire addition for the years under consideration has been made solely on the basis of estimates. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.), held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41.2.2, MUMBAI vs. IN COACH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7993/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Room No.834, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafi5110R V/S In Coach Builders, Plot No.1A, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (W), ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400083

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…the Tribunal to 15%. Therefore, the entire addition for the year under consideration has been made solely on the basis of estimates. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.), held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Jatin Enterprises (ITA No. 3885/Mum/2023) order dated 21.03.2023 wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under:- “5. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition h…

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in cases of Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi, in ITA No.459/SRT/2021, dated 19.10.2023, Deepak Banwarilal Agarwal, in ITA No.827/SRT/2023, dated 27.02.2024 and DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., in ITA N…

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in cases of Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi, in ITA No.459/SRT/2021, dated 19.10.2023, Deepak Banwarilal Agarwal, in ITA No.827/SRT/2023, dated 27.02.2024 and DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., in ITA N…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…CIT vs. M.A. Presstressed Works, 220 44-46 ITR 226 (Raj.) 7 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court Gyarsi Lal Vijay Vs. CIT ITA No.7/2002 47-49 order dt. 24.08.2016 (Raj.) (HC) 8 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and 50-54 Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) 9 Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Grandhi Sri Venkata 55-59 Amarendra vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 167 taxmann.com 352 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 301 Taxman 516 (Andhra Pradesh)[03-10-2024] 10 Hon'ble Madras High Court Director of Income Tax Exemptions, 60-66 Chennai Vs M/s. Young Men Christian Association, M…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…CIT vs. M.A. Presstressed Works, 220 44-46 ITR 226 (Raj.) 7 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court Gyarsi Lal Vijay Vs. CIT ITA No.7/2002 47-49 order dt. 24.08.2016 (Raj.) (HC) 8 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and 50-54 Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) 9 Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Grandhi Sri Venkata 55-59 Amarendra vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 167 taxmann.com 352 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 301 Taxman 516 (Andhra Pradesh)[03-10-2024] 10 Hon'ble Madras High Court Director of Income Tax Exemptions, 60-66 Chennai Vs M/s. Young Men Christian Association, M…

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…ty levied on estimated quantum addition as under :- (i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT 7 vs. Sara Sae (P) Ltd. (ii) ITAT Delhi Bench in Pawan Kumar Glupta in ITA Nos.3504 & 3505/Del/2024 (iii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj.); (iv) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and (v) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 7. Thus, as noted above, the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty lev…

SAMIR N SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 19(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4393/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarsamir N. Shah, A/35, Jeevan Villa Chs Narayan, Dabholkar Road, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aazps9084M V/S Income Tax Officer – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lower Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ed by the assessee in his books. Thus, the entire addition for the year under consideration has been made based solely on estimation. 7. We find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under 4 section 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition ha…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…le jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is al…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…le jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is al…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…le jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is al…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…le jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is al…

RADIANT GEMS ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2075/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2074 & 2075/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Radiant Gems Vs. ITO, Ward 34(3)(2) DC-2240, Bharat Diamond Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Borse, G Block, BKC, to C-43, G Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. 400051. PAN/GIR No. AAJFR3662E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dinkle hariya, Adv Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,…

RADIANT GEMS ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2074/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2074 & 2075/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Radiant Gems Vs. ITO, Ward 34(3)(2) DC-2240, Bharat Diamond Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Borse, G Block, BKC, to C-43, G Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. 400051. PAN/GIR No. AAJFR3662E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dinkle hariya, Adv Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,…

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6