CIT v. Punjab Tyres

162 ITR 517High Court1986#2415 most cited

What is CIT v. Punjab Tyres authority for?

A voluntary surrender of additional income made by an assessee to buy peace or avoid protracted litigation does not automatically constitute an admission of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Such an act alone cannot justify the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Punjab Tyres · 162 ITR 517 · 92 Taxmann.com 229 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty for concealment · surrender to buy peace · admission of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty proceedings

Also reported as

92 Taxmann.com 229

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

levy of penaltysection 274section 271section 27section 142transferindiaprescribedsection 14section 143(3)interestbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Punjab Tyres

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…savi Shelters Vs. ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com 26 (Bangalore- Trib) (vi) Saket Agarwal Vs. ITO [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 293 (Delhi-Trib) (vii) Marathon Nextgen Reality & Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 3 (Mumbai-Trib) (viii) CIT Vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (HC MP) 7. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case, observed that the sole basis for characterising the transactions between the assessee and Tuticorin Trexim Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transactions by the A.O was the stand alone statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal which was shared by the DIT (Inv.), Kolkata with him. The CIT(A) further obse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…savi Shelters Vs. ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com 26 (Bangalore- Trib) (vi) Saket Agarwal Vs. ITO [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 293 (Delhi-Trib) (vii) Marathon Nextgen Reality & Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 3 (Mumbai-Trib) (viii) CIT Vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (HC MP) 7. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case, observed that the sole basis for characterising the transactions between the assessee and Tuticorin Trexim Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transactions by the A.O was the stand alone statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal which was shared by the DIT (Inv.), Kolkata with him. The CIT(A) further obse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…savi Shelters Vs. ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com 26 (Bangalore- Trib) (vi) Saket Agarwal Vs. ITO [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 293 (Delhi-Trib) (vii) Marathon Nextgen Reality & Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 3 (Mumbai-Trib) (viii) CIT Vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (HC MP) 7. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case, observed that the sole basis for characterising the transactions between the assessee and Tuticorin Trexim Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transactions by the A.O was the stand alone statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal which was shared by the DIT (Inv.), Kolkata with him. The CIT(A) further obse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…savi Shelters Vs. ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com 26 (Bangalore- Trib) (vi) Saket Agarwal Vs. ITO [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 293 (Delhi-Trib) (vii) Marathon Nextgen Reality & Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 3 (Mumbai-Trib) (viii) CIT Vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (HC MP) 7. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case, observed that the sole basis for characterising the transactions between the assessee and Tuticorin Trexim Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transactions by the A.O was the stand alone statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal which was shared by the DIT (Inv.), Kolkata with him. The CIT(A) further obse…

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…age 23 of 25 not dealing in share trade as its main business was in the field of marketing and management consultancy etc. The share were non-delivery based though it mentioned to be delivery based in disclosure. The decision in the case of Punjab Tyres [1986]162 ITR 517 (MP) of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court as relied by the assessee is also not applicable as in said case the Hon`ble High Court held that agreed addition cannot constitute evidence of concealment unless the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of income. In the case of the assessee, there is no agreed addition as such and rather…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee had made surrender of the amount. Mere fact of surrender could not necessarily be an admission of assessee that amount surrendered was undisclosed income and liable to be subjected to penalty. The decisions In the cases of CIT of CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (162 ITR 517)(MP), Krishan Lal Shivchand Rai (88 ITR 293) (P&H) and S. V. Electrical Pvt. Ltd. (274 ITR 334) (MP) clearly support the case of appellant that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) 25 Wadhwa Constructions can be levied when the assessee has surrendered certain amount in the assessment proceedings. In the case of Gumani Ram Siri Ram Vs. CIT 5 ITR 67), the H…

Mina Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta & Sanjeev Kwatra, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…Chand (1996) 135 CTR 174 (Raj.) " Navnitlal Pochalal (1995) 213 ITR 69 (Guj.) " Nuruddin and Bros. (1990) 1985 ITR 481 (Cat) " Gridharlal Soni (1989) 179 ITR 111 (Cal) 4 Mina Gandhi " Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (1988) 169 ITR 33 (Bom) " Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) " M. George & Bros. (1986) 160 ITR 511 (Ker) " Smt. Hema Malini (1993) 45 TTJ 77 (Bom) (AT) 5. It was further submitted that the AO has not given a clear finding as to whether the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashok Raj Nath, P…

Mrs. Kamlesh Madan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4333/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…particular u/s 271(1)© is not justified and needs to be deleted. In support of his contention he relied upon the following case laws:- - Devsons Private Ltd. vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 - CIT vs. Deeksha Holdings Ltd. 196 Taxman 183 - CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) - CIT vs. Moti Lal & Co. (1990) 184 ITR 288 - ACIT vs. Smita Commercial & Investment Private Limited 90 Taxman 275 (Delhi); (2000) 246 ITR 216 (Del.) - ACIT vs. Smt. Geeta Devi (2001) 79 ITD 347 (Del.) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the counsel and perused the orders…