CIT v. Raj Overseas

324 ITR 73High Court2010#11490 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 22penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 2(15)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsdelay in filing appealpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 12aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Overseas

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO,…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO,…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO,…

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 d. CIT Vs Sterling Foods India (1999) 237 ITR 579 e. CIT Vs Budh Well Co Operative Sugar Mills P&H HC f. CIT Vs Harshvardhan - Rajasthan High Court g. CIT Vs Raj Overseas (2011) 336 ITR 261 (P&H) h. CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73 (P&H) 7.1. The assessee also submitted the penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

…nder s. 271(1) (c). Therefore, as the assessee did not include certain receipts in taxable income under bona fide belief that it is exempt under s. 10(14), penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, it was held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that in view of concurrent finding recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee, impugned order setting aside the levy of penalty under s. 271 (1)(c) cannot be held to be erroneous and no substantial question of law arises. Lyka…

Likproff India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2337/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2337/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Likproof India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Circle 1(2), 105, 1St Floor, Topaz Sra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Co-Op Housing Society Dr. Marg, Mumbai-400020. A. Nair Road, Agripada Mumbai-400011. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1873B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Milin Bakhai (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Milin Bakhai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…e of every return where the claim made is not accepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. High Court of Punjab and Harayana in case of CIT Vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) (324 ITR 73) Reliance is placed on the decision of High Court of Punjab and Harayana in case of CIT Vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) (324 ITR 73) wherein it was held that the assessee during penalty proceedings claimed that there is no concealment and the additional’disallowances has been made on account of difference of opinion. It is pertinent to mention here…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3287/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…eason for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly the impugned penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Cour…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3286/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…eason for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly the impugned penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Cour…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 3285/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…eason for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly the impugned penalty was deleted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- “1. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 2. CIT vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 73, (P & H High Court) 3. In Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 483 (Del.)” Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO and further submitted that since the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Cour…

CIT v. Raj Overseas (324 ITR 73) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax