CIT v. Krishna I.T.A. No. 4924 & 5517/D/2013 Assessment

330 ITR 547High Court2011#14035 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishna I.T.A. No. 4924 & 5517/D/2013 Assessment

My Guest House Accomodations P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi

ITA 4542/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 & Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 and decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Courts in cases of CIT vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd. 330 ITR 547 (Del.), CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. 354 ITR 27 (P&H) & CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 354 (P&H). 6. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue contended that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus that he has not furnished any inaccurate particulars as he has not appeared before the AO despite numerous oppo…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…nly industrial undertaking and that too at Baddi,HP. The assessee relied on the following judgements:- a) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) b) CIT v. Dharmpal Premchand Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 572 (Del) c) CIT v. Krishna Maruti Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 547 (Del) d) CIT v. SSP Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 643 (P&H) e) ITO v. Parikh Investment & Development P. Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 537 Mumbai I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 f) Equest India P. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 136 TTJ (Mumbai) g) Yogesh R. Desai v CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 101 h) Glorious Realty P. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2009) 29 SOT 292 (…

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3997/MUM/2015[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:1999-2000 Dcit, Asian Electronics Ltd. Circle-6(1)(2), 107, Sumer Kendra, P.B. बनाम/ Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Marg, Opp. Mahindra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Tower, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabca0832C

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…nsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, considering the factual matrix, case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) and explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the decision on the issue being debatable, judicial pronouncement in CIT vs Krishna Maruti Ltd. 330 ITR 547, CIT vs Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. 354 ITR 27 (P & H), CIT vs H. M. A. Udyog Pvt. Ltd. 195 taxman 394 (Del.), Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 144 ITD 45 (Mum.), I find that neither there is concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty is not leviable. Even otherwise, if a wrong cla…

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5517/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2009-10 Samtel India Ltd., Vs Acit, 501, Copia Corporate Suites, Circle 7(1), District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025 (Pan: Aaacs0390N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.05.2016

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ains, penalty under s. 271(l)(c) could not be levied on the basis that the AO has assessed the said income as business income and not as capital gains.” In another case CIT vs. Krishna I.T.A. No. 4924 & 5517/D/2013 Assessment year 2009-10 Maruti Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 547 (Del)], Hon’ble Delhi High Court has opined that “Assessee having claimed certain expenditure as revenue expenditure which was disallowed as capital expenditure, the claim being debatable, penalty under s. 271(l)(c) is not leviable.” 10. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Rel…

M/S Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4924/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2009-10 Samtel India Ltd., Vs Acit, 501, Copia Corporate Suites, Circle 7(1), District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025 (Pan: Aaacs0390N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.05.2016

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ains, penalty under s. 271(l)(c) could not be levied on the basis that the AO has assessed the said income as business income and not as capital gains.” In another case CIT vs. Krishna I.T.A. No. 4924 & 5517/D/2013 Assessment year 2009-10 Maruti Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 547 (Del)], Hon’ble Delhi High Court has opined that “Assessee having claimed certain expenditure as revenue expenditure which was disallowed as capital expenditure, the claim being debatable, penalty under s. 271(l)(c) is not leviable.” 10. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Rel…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samtel Display Systems Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5292/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Ita No. 5292/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs M/S Samtel Display Systems Ltd. 6Th Floor, Tdi Centre, Circle-7(1), New Delhi Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs0390N Assessee By : Sh. D. C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. D. C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…der the head capital gains. Therefore, there was no case for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Vamchampigons & Agro Proudce (2006) 200 CTR 259 (Del) " CIT Vs Krishna Maruti Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 547 (Del) " CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the claim of Rs.2,00,20,000/- was allowed by the then ld. 3 Samtel Display Systems Ltd. CIT(A) to be considered as a capital loss and the said view was upheld by the ITAT, therefore, there was no furnis…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nsr Farms Private Ltd., Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1737/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir: Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Nsr Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(1), The Principal Officer, New Delhi. 606-Chiranjiv Tower, 61-Nehru Place, Delhi. (Pan: Aaacn3068J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. Department By: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…by several decisions including the following: i) CIT vs. reliance Petro-product (P) Ltd. – 322 ITR 158 (S.C); ii) CIT vs. Honeywell Dac India Ltd. – 292 ITR 168 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Brahamputra Consortium Ltd. – 348 ITR 339; iv) CIT vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd. – 330 ITR 547 (Del.) & v ) Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 348 ITR 306 (S.C). 4. I find that against the returned income of Rs.68,270, the assessment under sec. 143(3) was framed at Rs.14,15,759. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and development of real estate properties, investment and agricultural produce. During t…