CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

327 ITR 543High Court2010#1049 most cited

What is CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. authority for?

When tax is levied under Section 115JB on book profits, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars can be imposed based on additions or disallowances made in the regular computation of income. The regular computation is only for comparative purposes when the final tax liability is based on book profits.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. · Section 115JB · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · book profits · MAT · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · additions regular assessment · tax on book profits · levy of penalty

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 387

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(1A)Section 35ADSection 153ASection 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

book profitssection 115jpenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 115jbpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 115section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…t assessee earned forward contract gain which has no nexus with the activity specifically eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A on the export profit. 1. CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (P&H) 4. Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Del) 5. CIT vs. EICON International (13) Ltd. 166 Taxman 12 (Del) 6. CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd. 177 Taxman 37 (Del) 7. CIT vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd. 211 CTR 543 (Del) 8. CIT vs. Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. 326 ITR 429 (P&…

M/S. Ceratizit (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6366/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. V. P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…herein the CIT(A) had upheld penalty of Rs.3,10,931/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notwithstanding the contention of the appellant company that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Nalwa Son Investments (India) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del), same could not be levied. Appellant had also filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide her order dated 29.07.2016 has allowed the rectification application and penalty under reference has been deleted by her. In view of above, the present appeal of the appellant company has become infructuous. A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Somic Zf Components Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5312/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5312/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs M/S Somic Zf Components Ltd. Central Circle-25, (Earlier Known As M/S Sona Somic New Delhi Lemforder Components Ltd.), B-59, (Lgf), Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs4766Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 03.06.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-29, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I

…the following cases. a) CIT vs. Central Warehousing Corp, 2012(4)TMI 434. b) Ruchi Strips and Alloys Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No. 6948/Mumbai/2008) c) CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment (Appeal No. 1420 of 2009)(Delhi) and SLP was dismissed by Supreme Court on 26.08.2010 (327 ITR 543) 6.1 Respectfully following the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd (Supra), I am of the considered view that MAT provisions are immune from the concealment penalty provisions, because MAT provisions are based on book profit which has nothing to do the assessment under normal provision of the Income Tax…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

…ergent views are available thus penalty order was rightly deleted by ld CIT(A). the ld AR for the assessee further relied upon the decision of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) and decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Nalwa Sons Investments ltd 327 ITR 543(Del). On the other the ld DR for the revenue supported the order of AO and would argue that the order of Ld CIT(A) be reversed and the order of AO may be restored. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the ld representatives of the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. At the time of filing of return the assessee…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2695/M/11 & I.T.A.No.6209/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Jbf Industries Limited बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Express Tower, Income Tax 4(2) Vs. Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5637/Mum/13, I.T.A.2765/Mum/11

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ssee has refuted the said contention and argued that the penalty is not liable to be leviable if addition made under the regular provision but the income assessed under the MAT provision in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Delhi) (HC) and Givaudan Flavours (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 2118/M/2010, A.Y.2002-03 dt. 20.02.2013. It is also argued that the disallowance of depreciation on premises was allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No.2507/M/2011 dated 16.10.2015, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty who has also relied upon the order pass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3078/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 13(1), M/S Nalwa Steel & Power New Delhi Vs. Limited, Room No. 406, Cr Building, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. UC Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274Section 32(1)(iia)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), M/S NALWA STEEL & POWER NEW DELHI VS. LIMITED, ROOM NO. 406, CR BUILDING, 28, NAJAFGARH ROAD, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (AABCN3209L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. UC Dubey, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, CA Date of Hearing : 02-08-2016 Date of Order : 09-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 22/2/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissio…

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonu Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4556/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 D C I T - 14(3)(1) M/S. Sonu Realtors P. Ltd. Room No., 455, 4Th Floor No.219, Laalasis, 11Th Road बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 Vs. Mumbai 40002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacs7073C

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…reciating that the assessee has tax liability under section 115JB, however, it has offered tax under normal provisions of the Act and, therefore, had furnished inaccurate particulars to evade tax relying upon the decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del). 2. During hearing the learned D.R. Shri Kailash Kanojyia advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised. On the other hand, Shri J.P. Bairagra, learned counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 2.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Be…

Watson Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6785/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…d thus it cannot be said that there was any tax sought to be evaded and therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd 327 ITR 543 (Del). He also relied upon the circular of the CBDT No.25 of 2015 dt 21-12-2025 wherein it has been provided by the Board that amendment made by Finance Act, 2015 vide Explanation 4 to sub section (1) of section 271 of the Act has been brought on prospectively i.e. wef 01-04-2016. 3. Per contra, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower autho…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…hence, the income is assessable u/s 115JB of the Act and under these circumstances no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. The assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Limited (2010) 327 ITR 543(Del. HC) wherein it was held that where the total income computed under regular provisions is less than book profit and assessment is made u/s 115JB of the Act, no penalty is exigible. The assessee company further submitted that the AO stated in its assessment orders u/s 143(3) of ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 5 the Act that depreciation will be al…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…hence, the income is assessable u/s 115JB of the Act and under these circumstances no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. The assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Limited (2010) 327 ITR 543(Del. HC) wherein it was held that where the total income computed under regular provisions is less than book profit and assessment is made u/s 115JB of the Act, no penalty is exigible. The assessee company further submitted that the AO stated in its assessment orders u/s 143(3) of ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 5 the Act that depreciation will be al…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…hence, the income is assessable u/s 115JB of the Act and under these circumstances no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. The assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Limited (2010) 327 ITR 543(Del. HC) wherein it was held that where the total income computed under regular provisions is less than book profit and assessment is made u/s 115JB of the Act, no penalty is exigible. The assessee company further submitted that the AO stated in its assessment orders u/s 143(3) of ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 5 the Act that depreciation will be al…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…hence, the income is assessable u/s 115JB of the Act and under these circumstances no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. The assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Limited (2010) 327 ITR 543(Del. HC) wherein it was held that where the total income computed under regular provisions is less than book profit and assessment is made u/s 115JB of the Act, no penalty is exigible. The assessee company further submitted that the AO stated in its assessment orders u/s 143(3) of ITA 3416 to 3419/Mum/2013 5 the Act that depreciation will be al…

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…ity and there was no case for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Nalwa Sons Investments Limited reported in 327 ITR 543, wherein it was held that although concealment was detected in the computation of tax as per the normal provisions of the Act, concealment penalty could not be imposed since ultimate tax liability was determined on the basis of MAT under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the contention of the assessee. According to him, a…

Gawande Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1)(c) had no relevance to income determined under section 115JB, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– Gawande Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 3 i) CIT v/s Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., 327 ITR 543 (Del.); ii) Ruchi Strips and Alloys Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.6940/ Mum./2008 dated 21st January 2011; and iii) BSEL Infrastructures Realty Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 150 TTJ 159. 5. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Having considered the facts and material on record, we find merit in t…

M/S. Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 980/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.980/Mum/2006 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2001-02) बनाम/ Killick Nixon Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Basement, Cc-3, Vs. Commercial Union House, Old Cgo 9, Wallace Street, Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.980/Mum/2006 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2001-02) बनाम/ Killick Nixon Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Basement, CC-3, Vs. Commercial Union House, Old CGO 9, Wallace Street, Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAACK8526A अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee by Shri Vijay C Kothari प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue by Shri K Krishna Murty सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of He…

ITO 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citizen Scales (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4731/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2009-10 Ito-9(1)(2), M/S Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. R. No.226, Shop No.3, Pushpanjali बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Gaushala Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Malad (East), Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcc3800G Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh- राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jitendra Singh

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…l for the assessee contended that no tax implication is involved in the present appeal as the assessee is assessed u/s 115JB of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del.) On the other hand, the Ld. DR defended the imposition of penalty. 2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee company filed return, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 3rd March 2011, determining the amount of Rs. 16,89,190/- as payable. The ap…

Mehta Sulfites (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4772/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar,Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR,AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No4772/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1999-2000) M/s Mehta Sulfites (India) Ltd. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax C/o Atul S. Desai. Circle 10 (2) R. No.474, बनाम/ A-302, Goldenoak, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM3109R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri M. Subramanian अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख…

Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5625/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri C.M. Garg, J.M. Ita No: 5625/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri VK Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80

…ows. 6. At the outset the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has argued ground no.2C and submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 543 (Del) and Unison Hotels Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA 89/2013 dt. 10.10.2013. He submitted that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has also adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. The Ld.CIT, D.R. on the other hand opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nal…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Naksha Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2161/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta Before Shri G.C. Gupta, Vice Before Shri G.C. Gupta Before Shri G.C. Gupta , Vice

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ BENCH ‘SMC BENCH ‘ SMC SMC-1’ : NEW DELHI SMC ’ : NEW DELHI ’ : NEW DELHI ’ : NEW DELHI PRESIDENT BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA No 2161/Del/2014 ITA No 2161/Del/2014 Assessment Year : : : : 2009 Assessment Year 2009-10 10 Assessment Year Assessment Year 2009 2009 10 10 Deputy Commissioner of Deputy Commissi…

Unison Hotels Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/89/2013HC Delhi10 Oct 2013
Section 115JSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…ITA No. 89/2013 Page 1 of 4 $~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 89/2013 Date of decision: 10th October, 2013 UNISON HOTELS LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Siddharth Shankar Dev, Advocate. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORA…