CIT v. P.K. Narayanan

238 ITR 905High Court1999#5241 most cited

What is CIT v. P.K. Narayanan authority for?

The imposition of penalty for concealment of income cannot be justified solely on the basis that additions were made and sustained in assessment and appellate proceedings. The penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the Tribunal can delete a penalty even if additions are confirmed, if the facts justify it.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.K. Narayanan · 238 ITR 905 · penalty for concealment · additions sustained · assessment proceedings · penalty proceedings · Tribunal deletion of penalty · facts justify penalty deletion

Judgments citing CIT v. P.K. Narayanan

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 135/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dings. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT [(2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.)] has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan [(1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.)] has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts so justify. Page 7 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. Penalty can be based on the material which was used by the Ld. A0 whi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 134/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dings. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT [(2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.)] has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan [(1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.)] has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts so justify. Page 7 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. Penalty can be based on the material which was used by the Ld. A0 whi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 133/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dings. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT [(2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.)] has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan [(1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.)] has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts so justify. Page 7 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. Penalty can be based on the material which was used by the Ld. A0 whi…

THE DCIT-1(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S FERN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…conclusion on this point." Copy of caselaw-Exhibit 9 These observations have been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). " Copy of caselaw - Exhibit 10 The Kerala High Court has earlier held in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker) that the addition being made and sustained in assessment and appellate proceedings would not toy itself justify penalty for concealment being levied. Likewise, the Gujarat High Court in National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj) has also held that the imposition of penalty cannot be justified merely because of additions being sustai…

ITO 27(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PADMA INDUSTRIES , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No. 2366/Mum/2021 A.Y.2009-10 1 ITO 27(2)(1) Vs. M/s Padma Industries IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO 27(2)(1) Vs. M/s Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAIFP9236D Respondent .. Appellant Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…enalty imposition. 3. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 4. The addition has been made only on the basis of estimate made by the A.O. It is settled legal position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposin…

AJIT SINGH BAGGA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 68

…. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan reported in (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. In the instant case, the addition has been made only on the basis of estimate made by the A.O. It is settled legal position that when income is estimated, then there can be no qu…

ARVIND KUMAR,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)

…. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan reported in (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. In the instant case, the addition has been made only on the basis of estimate made by the A.O. It is settled legal position that when income is estimated, then there can be no qu…

CTC PLAZA INTERNATIONAL TRADEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4900/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ve of the imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CTT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 5. It is noticed that the only basis of addition is the estimate of valuation made by the AO in valuing the closing stock @ Rs,200.50 per bag, being the cost price of cement ba…

R. V. ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. 4. That on the facts and n the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in dismissing assessee’s appeal against order u/s. 271(1)(c) without dealing with judicial decisions relied by the appellant as under:- (a) CIT –vs- P.K. Narayanan 238 ITR 905(Kar) (b)CIT-vs-Babu Ram Ramkishan 116 ITR 410 (All) (c) Harigopal Singh –vs- CIT 258 ITR 85 (Punj & Har) (d) CIT-vs-Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 3212 ITR 158 (SC) 5. That on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss appeal without adjudicating the issue that tax sought to be evaded was excessive, is er…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), MUMBAI vs. DHL OPERATIONS B.V., NETHERLANDS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

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

…m assessment, proceedings. The finding recorded in the assessment order is not conclusive for deciding the imposition of penalty. It only has a persuasive value. The A.O. has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.K. Narayanan, 238 ITR 905 wherein it is held that a resumption arises of concealment of income, if any addition made by the A.O. is sustained by the appellate authority. This is correct but the presumption is rebutable. Any finding recorded in the assessment order does not mean that the penalty 'has to be imposed automatically. Explanation 1 to sec.271(1) (c) provides tha…

SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6480/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6480/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Praveen Kumar Maheshwari Vs ITO 8875/2, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ward-39(4) Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi AAKPM1582B (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Satyajit Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 20/09/2013 passed by CIT(A)-XXVIII, New De…

M/S. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (INT TAX) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3139/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri T.R. Paite-Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3139/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2000-01 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3140/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3141/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessmen…

THAKKAR POPATLAL VELJI SALES LTD.,PANVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…T vs Devandas Perumal & Co. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.), CIT vs Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147(Bom), Laxminarain Ramavatar vs ITO (31 TTJ 478)(JP), ITO vs Dr. K.V.R. Krishnaji (40 taxman 222) (Hyd), National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), CIT vs P.K. Narayanan (238 ITR 905) (Ker.), supports our view. 2.3. It is an accepted principle of law that if there is difference of opinion on a particular issue, then it cannot be a case of concealment for which the ratio laid down in CIT vs Garg Engineering Company (235 ITR 452, 454)(All.) and Cement marketing of India Ltd. Vs Asst. CST (124 ITR 15, 18)(SC) supports our view.…

M/S. SHEETAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6099/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…e Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), wherein, it has been held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. We further note that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. 7 Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 9. We further find that AO observed that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which did not establish that how the…

SPL INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5655/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., 5/66, Kc Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, House, 3Rd Floor, Padam Singh Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0343R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Syed Nasir, Acit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order

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

…cealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed, is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 170 CTR (P & H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H) have observed that merely because certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it cannot mean that particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong. It was held that mere disallowanc…

DDIT(IT) - 2(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. RAJ NARAYAN SINHA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…IT 265 ITR 25,183 CTR; 130 taxmann 553 as follows:- “When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed is a principle that has been enunciated in the said two decisions in National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Gj) and CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker). In CIT v. P.K.Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker), it was held that unless the amount is owned by the assessee and there is a conclusive finding to that effect it is not hit by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). whereas in National Textiles v CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj), it was held that until and unless the Explanation is found to be fal…

VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 132 & 133/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 1990-91 M/s Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T., E-45/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-17(1), Phase-2, New Delhi – 20 New Delhi (PAN:AAACVO886C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15-02-2016 Date of pronouncement: 03-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against…

VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 132/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 132 & 133/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 1990-91 M/s Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T., E-45/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-17(1), Phase-2, New Delhi – 20 New Delhi (PAN:AAACVO886C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15-02-2016 Date of pronouncement: 03-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)

…cealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed, is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 170 CTR (P & H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H) have observed that merely because certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it 21 cannot mean that particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong. It was held that mere disallow…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. P.K. Narayanan (238 ITR 905) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax