CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers

368 ITR 722High Court2014#1426 most cited

What is CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the quantum appeal is pending before the High Court or where a quantum addition is confirmed and a question of law is admitted by the High Court.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nayan Builders and Developers · CIT v Nayan Builders · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · quantum appeal pending · High Court · furnishing inaccurate particulars · levy of penalty · section 274 · deletion of penalty · appeal pending High Court

Also reported as

231 Taxmann 66556 Taxmann.com 335

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 274Section 144CSection 28(v)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 28(v)section 276csection 276section 40a(2)(a)dependent agent peagency pefixed place pedeletion of penaltyinterest on interestfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)royalty income

Judgments citing CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers

Ge Jenbacher Gmbh & Co. Ohg, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 757/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

Ge Jenbacher Gmbh & Co., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 756/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

Ge Jenbacher Gmbh & Co. Ohg, Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 755/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Ge Jenbacher Gmbh & Co., Gurgaon

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 754/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

General Electric Power Systems Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 693/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

Ge Jenbacher Gmbh & Co. Ohg, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 692/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…oing paragraph (4) of this order, is against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Moreover, in another case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2015] 56 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxmann 665 (Bombay)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay) it was held by Hon’ble High Court: Page 19 of 22 “As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated September 27, 2010, admitting Income…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Power Compnay Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3919/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Sushmita Basu, CA
Section 115JSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law is framed by Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A of the Act it shows that the issue is debatable and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 has also held that where High Court admitted substantial question of law in respect of which penalty was levied the impugned order of penalty was to be deleted. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/Del/2015 Court we hold that when the issue is admitted by Hon’ble High Court as s…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Power Compnay Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3918/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Sushmita Basu, CA
Section 115JSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law is framed by Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A of the Act it shows that the issue is debatable and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 has also held that where High Court admitted substantial question of law in respect of which penalty was levied the impugned order of penalty was to be deleted. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/Del/2015 Court we hold that when the issue is admitted by Hon’ble High Court as s…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Power Compnay Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3917/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Sushmita Basu, CA
Section 115JSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law is framed by Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A of the Act it shows that the issue is debatable and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 has also held that where High Court admitted substantial question of law in respect of which penalty was levied the impugned order of penalty was to be deleted. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/Del/2015 Court we hold that when the issue is admitted by Hon’ble High Court as s…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…n respect of interest free loan being a substantial question of law, it is an indication that the issue is debatable and levying a penalty is bad in law. In support, reliance was placed on following judicial precedents: " CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) " CIT v. Liquid Investments and Trading Co. (ITA No. 240/2009) (Delhi High Court) 33. Per contra, the ld. CIT DR submitted that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly applicable in the instant case as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed in international transaction e…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…n respect of interest free loan being a substantial question of law, it is an indication that the issue is debatable and levying a penalty is bad in law. In support, reliance was placed on following judicial precedents: " CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) " CIT v. Liquid Investments and Trading Co. (ITA No. 240/2009) (Delhi High Court) 33. Per contra, the ld. CIT DR submitted that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly applicable in the instant case as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed in international transaction e…

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

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

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…batable and thus no penalty was imposable on the same: “5. The Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) deleting the penalty. This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] entertained by this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable. The aforesaid decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd (supra) was also followed by this C…

Shehzeen Z Siddique, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed

ITA 6275/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…stion of law has been admitted by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Nayan 5 Mrs. Shehzeen Z. Siddique Builders & Developers [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bom) for the proposition that when substantial question of law is admitted by the Hon’ble High Court the issue becomes debatable. In such circumstances, the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. Furthermore, the ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee has offered the income under the head long term capital gain to be…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Farhad Jamshed Bottlewala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit– 21(1) V. Shri Farhad Jamshed Batliwala Room No. 116, 1St Floor, 7 Khan Estate, Batliwala Building, Piramal Chambers, Parel, M.M. Chottani Road, Mahim Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 016

For Appellant: Shri H.S. RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…er the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54F was debatable and there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of the CIT v. Nayan Builders & Developers [368 ITR 722] and submitted that when the Hon'ble High Court admitted substantial question of law in respect of which penalty levied, impugned order where penalty was levied is liable to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in the assessee’s own case an appeal filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was admitted on 19.01.20015 an…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shah Rukh Khan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM AND SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, AM Dy. Commissoner of Income-tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AAHPK3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय…

Maruti Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…essee. For this, he relied on the following decisions: i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co in ITA No.240/2009 order dated 5.10.2010. ii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Nayan Builders and Developers, 368 ITR 722 (Bom) iii) Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs ACIT, 60 TTJ 171 (Ahd) Asse ssment Year : 20 04- 05 iv) Rupam Mercantile Ltd vs DCIT, 91 ITD 237 (Third Member)(Ahd) 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record.…

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…60 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 362 ITR 160 (Kar) • CIT vs. Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680 (Mad) • CIT vs. Shyam RajSingh 367 ITR 74 (P &H) • CIT vs. Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) • CIT-II Lucknow Vs. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited MANU/UP/0358/2016 The above decision has been cited in support of the contention that disallowance of any claim cannot be become the basis of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, we find that the decisions relied upon by the assessee were rendered in the specific facts of each…

Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3300/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Piramal Enterprises Limited Deputy Commissioner Of [As Successors To Bmk Income-Tax 10(3) Laboratories Private Limited] Mumbai बनाम/ Piramal Tower Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-1747-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ronak G Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. 4 Piramal Enterprises Limited Assessment Year 2003-04 5. The Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) deleting the penalty. This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] was not entertained by this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable. The aforesaid decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd (supra) was also followed b…

Sakal Paper Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Cir.-6, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 497/PUN/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KothariFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…table and in such a situation, penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such debatable addition and for this proposition, we find support by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nayan Builders and Developers reported in 368 ITR 722 (Bom). In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct the deletion of penalty on both the issues. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 17th day of January, 2018. (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे Pune…

Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani, Nagpur vs. ACIT-Circle-8, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 293/Nag./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani Hitesh Place, Ring Road …………… Appellant Jaripatka, Nagpur 440 014 PAN – ABOPD3501A v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. Respondent Circle–8, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri A.R. Ninawe Date of Hearing – 21.06.2017 Date of Order – 28.06.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. The instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated…