CIT v. Pilani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.

383 ITR 635High Court2016#17806 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 69dsection 64section 113clarificatory amendmentsection 92bsection 17section 69bconcealment of incomesection 92international transactionsection 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Pilani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

…e prevention of which, was the reason for which said amendment was made u/s 115BBE. ITA NO. 1082/JP/2024 ANATOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR B. 7. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pilani Investments and Industries Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 635/238 Taxman 384/67 Taxman.com 60 held that disclosure and concealment cannot co-exist. However the ld. CIT(A) has not spoken a single word on these submissions and legal position of law." After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee and the B…

Sri Sanat Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (I.T.), Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

…rrect computation of income. In light of this, the penalty levied by the AO is hereby deleted. 6.1. In arriving at this conclusion, strength is derived from the findings in the case of CIT vs. Pilani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in [2016] 383 ITR 635 (Calcutta) wherein in para 13 of this order it is held “As held in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The conditions precedent under clause (c) of se…

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

…made the disclosure, the assessee clearly doesn’t fall in the category, the prevention of which, was the reason for which said amendment was made u/s 115BBE. D.7. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pilani Investments and Inductries Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 635/238 Taxman 384/67 Taxman.com 60 held that disclosure and concealment cannot co- exist. 2.2. Ld. CIT(A), at Page 12, of her order has stated that if any income is surrendered by the assessee, then it would still be in the nature of income under Section 68 to 69D and thus the provisions of Section 115BBE would be applicable. It is submitted that fo…

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

…made the disclosure, the assessee clearly doesn’t fall in the category, the prevention of which, was the reason for which said amendment was made u/s 115BBE. D.7. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pilani Investments and Inductries Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 635/238 Taxman 384/67 Taxman.com 60 held that disclosure and concealment cannot co- exist. 2.2. Ld. CIT(A), at Page 12, of her order has stated that if any income is surrendered by the assessee, then it would still be in the nature of income under Section 68 to 69D and thus the provisions of Section 115BBE would be applicable. It is submitted that fo…

Sukhbir Singh Dhupia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.-Circle-39, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…f the State Government. Moreover, we find that mere disallowance of claim made by the assessee cannot lead to automatic levy of penalty. Reliance placed by the Learned AR on the following decisions is well founded:- CIT vs Binani Investments Ltd reported in 383 ITR 635 (Cal) CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) 4 Sukhbir Singh Dhupia A.Yr.2004-05 Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in cancelling the levy of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowe…

CIT v. Pilani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd. (383 ITR 635) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax