CIT v. M/s MSK Constructions P Ltd.

296 ITR 18High Court2008#13947 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s MSK Constructions P Ltd.

Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 603/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.603 /DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 4 (2), B-209, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 028. (PAN : AAACB5411H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date of Order : 03.05.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/Nationa…

Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5425/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-26(2), 114, Citi Centre, New Delhi. B.B. Road, Meerut. Pan: Aaccv2294C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Fca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & In Law Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)( C) Of The Act Is Not Maintainable. Ld. Ao Has Given Notice Without Specifying Whether There Is Concealment Of Income Or Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Is Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C ) For Rs. 77,47,664/- Is Totally Wrong, Unjustified & Illegal. The Appellant Had Never Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealed Income At Any Stage Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In Penalty Proceedings. The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Ought To Be Deleted In Full.”

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…2010 in ITA No.471/PN/2007, penalty on account of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act is not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. MSK Construction (P) Ltd., 296 ITR 18 (Mad), wherein it has been observed that disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act does not amount to concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and submitted that penalty is not leviable on this account. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly contended that the assessee filed its revised return of income declaring a los…

Venus Exports, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 312/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Miss. Mamta Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…ing of inaccurate particulars of income, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case. In the aforesaid proposition, we are supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. MSK Construction (P.) Ltd., 296 ITR 18(Mad.), wherein it has been observed that a disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act does not amount to concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to uphold the ultimate prayer of the assessee that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not merited in the present case…

M/S. Nav-Yug Sewing Machine Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 281/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009-10 Nav-Yug Sewing Machine Co.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 13(1) E 47/13, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi Phase Ii New Delhi 110 020 Pan: Aabcn4225G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Surjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.R.Senapti, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…9, the penalty was not levied on the ground that two views are possible while on similar additions in Assessment Year 09-10, the same has been levied in clear ignorance of judgment as settled by Madras High Court in CIT vs. M/s MSK Constructions P Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 18 and Hon’ble SC’s decision in case of Reliance Petroproducts P Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 9. Because CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty on the basis of case laws which are distinguishable and different from facts and circumstances of the appellant. 10. The appellant craves to add, delete, amend, modify, re-word any ground or grounds of appeal.” 2…

M/S. Nav-Yug Sewing Machine Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 280/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sri Surjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.R.Senapti, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

Sea Link (India) Ltd, Rajkot vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3454/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3454/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sea Link (India) Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co. बनाम/ Chartered Accountants Circle 3(3) 411, Cosmo Complex Mumbai Vs. Mahila College Circle, Rajkot – 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-4542-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Kalpesh S.Doshi, Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Kalpesh S.Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 32

…ible to debit the same in the Profit & Loss Account and therefore, no penalty against such disallowance could be imposed as per the 5 Sea Link (India) Limited Assessment Year-2006-07 decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. MSK Constructions (P) Ltd. [296 ITR 18]. Our attention was further drawn to the fact that the assessee incurred huge losses during the impugned AY but the same could not be carried forward by him in the next AY in view of the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly which made assessee ineligible to carry forward the said business losses and therefore, the assessee stood to g…

Automobiles Products of India Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 7584/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7584/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…e dues amounting to Rs.27,84,655/- within the due date granted under the installment scheme approved by the PF/ESIC authorities. The assessee placed reliance in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd., 322 ITR 158 and CIT v. MSK Constructions P. Ltd., 296 ITR 18 (Mad.) but the facts are different and hence distinguishable. ITA7584/Mum/2013 6 The ld. CIT(A) accordingly upheld the action of the A.O. as in his opinion the assessee has not only furnished inaccurate particulars but also there is an attempt to conceal the income and hence explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is squarely applicable t…