Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 250, Section 274.

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries?

117 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580), spanning 2016 to 2026.

360 ITR 580High Court2014#902 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 366,005 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 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 250 Section 274 Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)deletion of penalty penalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income section 271(1)section 271(1)(c)levy of penalty section 274

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1 (2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions and also after taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition. Therefore, the appeal of…

United Gems, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT- 19 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2304/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm United Gems Nfac, Dcit-19(3), Ge-9010, G Block, Bharat Diamond Mumbai Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaafu 4527 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 4 United Gems vs. Dy. CIT 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271…

M/S V.K. Ispat & Alloys, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni

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

…where the addition is made on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 2…

Jugal Kishore Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 286/JPR/2022[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 1986-87

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(2)(b)Section 282

…it at rupee 13,00,260) on estimate basis. There is no positive fact or finding had been found so as to even make the addition. We submit in such circumstances penalty could not be levied. We rely: - CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj); In this case, the assessee was engaged in retreading of old (worn out) tyres of all vehicles. Besides the job work, the assessee also sold such raw material to local parties. A survey operation was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 16.11.1995, where some documents were found, which were not satisfactorily explained a…

Jitendrakumar Bhailal Dodiya, Savarkundla vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Amreli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ion made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR 672 (All.) - Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P & H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) - HarigopaJ Singh 4. 140 !TR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 4.3 page no. 4 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that ............... A penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act is separately initiated for this default.............. 2.1.2 Thus no specific charge is mention as to whether it is concealment…

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

…nds of assessee on account of bogus purchase merely on estimations. It is an accepted legal position that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied where additions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)]. 5. We further find that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 18.03.2015 and the subsequent notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2019 falls short of the legal requirement to be…

Shri Vijay J. Faldu, Upleta vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (4), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

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

…addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR6 72(All) – Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P&H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P&H) - Harigopal Singh 4. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 3.2 page no. 3 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that from above facts, it is clear that the assessee has shown inaccurate particulars and concealment of his income. This default of the assessee attracts a penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT…

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

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

…on was restricted to 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It is trait law that penalty on addition based on mere estimations is unsustainable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre 6. 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(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho’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 has be…

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2535/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 32(1), Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Plot No.96/100 Audumber Bungalow, Charkop Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. Pan: Aaapp-7172-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani : None Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/07/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. As Per Defect Memo Raised By The Registry, This Appeal Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Ld.Departmental Representative Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 30/07/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 31/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 271(1)(c)

…e finding by the Assessing Officer as to what is the amount unreported by the assessee that has lead to escapement of income from tax net. 3 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(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho’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 has be…

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1989/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

…unreported that has lead to escapement of income from tax net. The addition is made by estimating escaped income @ 20% of unproved purchases. 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(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho’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 has be…

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1988/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karla Engine Components Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1357/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Heliwal

Section 271(1)(c)

…respect of adhoc addition/additions made on estimated basis. For levy of penalty, the AO has to conclusively prove the quantum of suppressed income. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable in respect of addition made on pure guesswork or estimations. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53). The Hon’ble High Court held that the proviso of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not…

Pratiksha J. Kudtarkar, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed

ITA 2674/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Neha SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…levied penalty under Section Ms. Pratiksha J. Kudtarkar 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is a well-settled legal position that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on estimated addition [Re. : CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj.)]. We find merit in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. Accordingly, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the impugned assessment years is deleted. The impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are al…

Pratiksha J. Kudtarkar, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed

ITA 2673/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Neha SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy for Shri Vishal Mohan)For Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: Sh. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1393 /Chd/ 2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Popli The DCIT बनाम Hemant Lodge, Murray Field Estate Central Circle-II, Chandigarh Nav Bahar, Shimla ITO, Himalaya Marg, Sector 17 Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPP3283G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy…

Naveen Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kishangarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…order cannot legally stand. 16. With regard to the merit of the penalty, the ld AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj) and CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj) wherein it was held that no penalty is imposable where addition is made on estimated basis. 17. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there was concealment of income therefore, the penalty so levied for the addition made with regard to profit estimated on unaccounted sales should…

Mahendra J. Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1727/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1727/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Mahendra J. Shah (Huf) 9, बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(1), Ground Floor, Mangesh Mumbai. Vs. Building, Avantikabai Gokhale Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachm6978D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala(Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.07.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Appellant Prefers An Appeal Against An Order Dated 25/07/2013 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeal) 28, Mumbai On Following Amongst Other Grounds Each Of Which Are Without Prejudice To Any Other: -

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala(AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 68

…ied upon the law settled in Murarilal Ratanlal Agarwal Vs. ACIT IT (SS) A. No. 573 & 615/Ahd)2012, Ojas Ashokbhai Vs. ITO ITA. No.296 & 297/Ahd/2013, CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla 252 CTR 453 (Raj-High Court), CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj-High Court) & CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. 254 ITR 191 (P&H-High Court). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Copy of bank statement of (HUF) on record which lies at page no. 1 to 2 of the paper book. In the said account, there is no deposit of…

Shri Suresh Kumar Mittal, L/H Shri Devi Sahai Mittal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…as been estimated by both the authorities and the additions have been made in the hands of the assessee. 9. In this factual background, we refer the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: ITA 726/JP/2017_ 5 Suresh Kumar Mittal Vs ITO “8. On a perusal of facts, it is apparent that the Tribunal in the regular proceedings had upheld the addition by observing that the Assessing Officer, though justified in making some addition, however, it observed that even the Assessing Office…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1392/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…n estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his income; hence, no penalty was leviable. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower autho…