CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co.

254 ITR 191High Court2002#3715 most cited

What is CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if additions to income are made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty levy · estimated assessment · additions on estimate · no concrete evidence · Punjab and Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 250nfacbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co.

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…of the jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills 303 ITR 053 ( P&H ). 10. The relevant portion of his written arguments are reproduced: 5 I.T.A. No. 70/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 “In CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…n 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd in 216 ITR 92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 422 (Mad) 7.15. The AO in his penalty order has held that assessee has not attempted to establish his bonafides nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings and thus has failed to discharge the onus laid…

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

…rete evidence of concealment, then penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be levied. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide para no. 7 held as under: “7. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 and Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (C) of section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of…

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…uresh Chand Bansal 329 ITR 330(Calcutta) 17. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 171 Taxman 320 (Punajb & Haryana) 18. Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 125 Taxman 242 (Punjab & Haryana) 19. CIT vs. Ravail Singh 254 ITR 191(P&H) 20. Hari Om Kumar Umesh Chand vs. ITO. 124 Taxman 213 (Agra) 21. CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (Madhya Pradesh-HC) 22. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 86 Taxman 20(Guj) 12. We also find support from the series of decisions by different High Courts as well Coordinate Benches of ITAT, wherein it was held that when addition…

MACHINFABRIK ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…stated that it was not provided with the copy of the statement record of M/s. Arihant Steel both under MVAT and IT proceedings. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 (P & H), CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (SC) and the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Laxman Trimbak Gule vs. ITO (in ITA No. 348/Pune/2018 vide order dated 05.04.2021), wherein it was held that no penalty can be levied in case of addition made on the basis of estimate. The assessee further submitted that th…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ngrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we dir…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 934/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ngrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we dir…

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 933/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ngrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we dir…

ITO 12 (3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S MEHTA INFOCOM PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 7678/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7678/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-12(3)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Mehta Infocom Pvt. Room No.145, 1St Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mehta House, Af/3, Cama Road, Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Nr, Hub Mall, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm2000E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Of Rs.4,76,659/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Original Return Of Income & Thus Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Within The Meaning Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 7678/M/2019 A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 69C

…rur Vanaspati Mills Ltd, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. 7. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Pa vail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 and Hori Gopol Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of…

KAMALA SHIVA KUMAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…aring the computation of income, it was held that it was a case of inadvertent mistake and no penalty was leviable for concealment. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191/122 Taxman 831 held 'that Penalty- Concealment of income-Additions made on basis of estimate and not on concrete evidence of concealment of income-Penalty not leviable under ' s. 271(1)(c) IT Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c), Explanation'. 7. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…under:- "6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. 5 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The pro…

SATISH SARAF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Pate/ 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (NIP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)] (viii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. DM/o/7 Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] Reliance is further placed on the following decisions of various High Courts/ Tribunals wherein, it has been categorically held that penalty cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on the basis, of estimation of profit rate…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ANAND BABULAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5040/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Anand Babulal Mehta, Income Tax – 25(2), 301, Aalap Nehru Road, Room No. 220, 2nd Floor, Vile Parle (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN : AARPM2652F Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ITO – Wd-25(2)(4), Shri Jai Pravin Gandhi, Room No. 218, Kautilya Bhavan, 19, Nandanvan, Dr. Ansari Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai - 400056 Mum…

ITO WARD 25(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. JAI PRAVIN GANDHI , MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4997/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10
Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Anand Babulal Mehta, Income Tax – 25(2), 301, Aalap Nehru Road, Room No. 220, 2nd Floor, Vile Parle (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN : AARPM2652F Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ITO – Wd-25(2)(4), Shri Jai Pravin Gandhi, Room No. 218, Kautilya Bhavan, 19, Nandanvan, Dr. Ansari Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai - 400056 Mum…

GRAFICA FLEXTRONICA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Grafica Flextronica Acit-25(2), Room No. 508, C-10, 5Th 3, “Saurabh- “A” Chs Ltd., Vs. Ground Floor, Next To Bhuta Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, High School, Shahaji Raje Bandra Kurla Complex, Marg, Vile Parle (East), ” Bandra (East), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaafg4064A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (C.A) Respondent By : Shri Abhi Rama Karthikeyan S. (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Abhi Rama Karthikeyan S. (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…it is settled law that no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) for the year on adhoc/estimated additions. Similar view has been taken by various High Courts and co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Company (254 ITR 191 (P&H). (ii) Harigopal vs. CIT 9258 ITR 85 (P&H HC). ITA No. 295 Mum 2018-M/s Grafica Flextronica (iii) ITO vs. Bombaywala Readymade Store [2015] 230 Taxman 313 (Guj.). (iv) Naresh Chand Aggarwal vs. CIT (357 ITR 515 (All HC), (v) DCIT vs. Manohar Manak (ITA 5586/M/2015). (vi) Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA 7519/M/2013). (vii) Sarvesh Me…

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…nalty can be imposed. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in case CIT vs. Raharnat Khan Birbaf Khan Badruddin & Party (1999) 240 ITR 778 (Raj), in case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H), in case of CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co.[2002] 254 ITR 191 (P&H), in case of CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All), in case of J. A. Trivedi Bros. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 705 (MP) and in case of Bombay Hardware Syndicate v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad). 35. It was finally submitted that it is clear that penalty has been imposed without considering the argument made before the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A),…

RITESH P. BURAD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane PAN/GIR No.ADGPB7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri E Sridhar Date of Hearing 18/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 3, Thane dated 17/02/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of imposition of p…

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed

ITA 243/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…essee had concealed particulars of income and had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty could not be levied. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1) CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh & Co., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 2) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh& Co., 254 ITR 191 (P&H) 3) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproduct (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities stating that the Panchkula unit was admittedly the head office of the assessee’s business and depreciation on office and furniture equipment had to be allocated to the non-exempt unit also since the benefit…

MAHENDRA J. SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1727/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1727/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Mahendra J. Shah (Huf) 9, बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(1), Ground Floor, Mangesh Mumbai. Vs. Building, Avantikabai Gokhale Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachm6978D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala(Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.07.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Appellant Prefers An Appeal Against An Order Dated 25/07/2013 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeal) 28, Mumbai On Following Amongst Other Grounds Each Of Which Are Without Prejudice To Any Other: -

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala(AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 68

…ACIT IT (SS) A. No. 573 & 615/Ahd)2012, Ojas Ashokbhai Vs. ITO ITA. No.296 & 297/Ahd/2013, CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla 252 CTR 453 (Raj-High Court), CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj-High Court) & CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. 254 ITR 191 (P&H-High Court). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Copy of bank statement of (HUF) on record which lies at page no. 1 to 2 of the paper book. In the said account, there is no deposit of an amount of Rs.11,47,000/-. Copy of bank-statement of Sh…

TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI (DELHI ) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Vs. Dcit Cen Cir 9 (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., R.No.806, Old Cgo Annex Ground Floor Building, M.K.Road, Somnath Apartments, Ram Mumbai – 400 020 Mandir R.D.Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aabct0165H Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 171(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9 (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., R.No.806, Old CGO Annex Ground Floor Building, M.K.Road, Somnath Apartments, Ram Mumbai – 400 020 Mandir R.D.Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 PAN/GIR No.AABCT0165H Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee by Shri Subhash Chhajed Revenue by Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing 26/12/2017 Date of Pronouncement 09/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai dated 28/11…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2