CIT v. Prakash Industries Ltd.

322 ITR 622High Court#11770 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GGC Section 120 Section 127

Issues it is cited on

section 147 nfac person

Judgments citing CIT v. Prakash Industries Ltd.

SUCHISMITA DHAL,ODISHA vs. ITO 1 KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.16 & 17/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2019-20 Suchismita Dhal Co Saraj Kanta Dhal, Block Chowk, Behind Lic Office, Sonepur Raj Sonepur, Balangir (Odisha)-767017 Pan: Aorpd4399C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 80G

…oresaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported as 322 ITR 622 that when the entire addition had been deleted 6 Suchismita Dhal Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA Nos. 16 & 17/RPR/2025 in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. Hence, the penalty order is quashed. 10. As per the aforesaid terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee in…

SUCHISMITA DHAL,ODISHA vs. ITO 1 KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 80G

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282A(1)

…oresaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported as 322 ITR 622 that when the entire addition had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. 6. As per the aforesaid terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of September, 2025. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY)…

BHAN BAI, BHILAI,DURG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. No.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ayrpb7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 271(1)(c)

…t was held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the 15 Smt. Bhan Bai Vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai case of CIT Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported as 322 ITR 622 that when the entire addition had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. Accordingly, penalty imposed by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is quashed. 6. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allow…

GODAVARI KHORE SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE ,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 2335/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2335/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Godavari Khore Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., A/P Sahajanandnagar, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaag0652R बनाम / V/S. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Prasanna Joshi Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.07.2017 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is Cooperative Society Engaged In The Business Of Milk Processing. The Appellant Society Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Through Electronically Mode On 22.09.2013 Disclosing Rs.Nil Income After Setting Off Of The Brought

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale

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

…n the absence of this finding, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts :- (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Parkash Industries Ltd., 322 ITR 622 (P&H); (iii) CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); and, (iv) CIT vs. S S P Ltd, 328 ITR 643 (P&H). 8. In the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set-aside and we direct the As…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco(India) Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…fication for imposing penalty as per the binding judgments of the Hon‟ble High Courts which are as follows: (i) CIT Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. (ii) CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. reported as 322 ITR 622 by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The legal proposition from these judgments is that when the entire addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. 3 A.Y.2004-05 4. In view of the matter and judicial pronouncements as referred herein above, ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismis…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

…ation in sustaining the penalty. We further find the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported in 274 ITR 640 and Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported in 322 ITR 622 has held that when the entire additions had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. Thus, we sustain the deletion of penalty from the hands of assessee on this issue, Thus, ground No.4 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No.5 relates to the deletion of penalty on the issue of disallowance on ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I,,, PUNE vs. FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 839/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.839/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation-1), Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Plot No. T-187, Pimpri Industrial Area ( B.G Block), Behind Bhosari Police Station, Bhosari, Pune-411 026. Pan: Aabcf6351K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Padmaja Likhite & Ms. Payal GangFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Malviya

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.839/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation-1), Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Plot No. T-187, Pimpri Industrial Area ( B.G Block), Behind Bhosari Police Station, Bhosari, Pune-411 026. PAN: AABCF6351K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Padmaja Likhite & Ms. Payal Gang Revenue by : Shri Ashok Malviya सुनवाई की…

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d on the issue of cross examination, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that Mr. Mukesh Chokshi were cross examined by the assessee. 2.2. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, placed reliance upon the decision in (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) and 322 ITR 622 (Del.). On merit, the ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that the transactions are genuine, sales bills were produced before the Assessing Officer, therefore, there was nothing to indicate that the transactions were bogus. In reply, the ld. DR strongly contended that all the transactions are bogus and the transactions were done through stock ex…