CIT v. Reliance

270 ITR 156High Court2004#7369 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance authority for?

A penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c) if it is based on a legal interpretation of the statute rather than a finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT vs Reliance · section 271(1)(c) · penalty levy · legal interpretation · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)satisfaction for initiation of penaltyspeculation lossbona fide mistakesection 73section 43(5)speculative transactiondeletion of penaltysection 35dpenalty proceedings initiatedstatement under section 132(4)non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. CCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

DCIT-Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

DCIT CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…invoking penal provision. The Hon'ble ITAT discussed the issue as follows:- "This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. In one of such cases, namely CIT -vs.- SPK Steels Pvt. Limited (270 ITR 156 (M.P.)], it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not eligible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to Section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with…

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Suraj Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1052/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1052/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram S. Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Pipara, AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…ng provisions of the law. He also relied on the judicial pronouncements in case of Arctic Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) (ITA No. 264/2009). CIT Vs. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. 163 Taxman 533 7310 ITR 121 (Delhi HC) and CIT Vs. S.P.K. Steels Pvt. Ltd. 270 ITR 156 (MP HC). Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai also decided on the same lines in the case of Lenient Finvest P. Ltd. Mumbai vs Assessee in its order dated 22 June. 2016 in ITA~'isIo.l017/Mum/20l3 (A.Y.:2001 -02. The Tribunal decided that merely treating the business loss as speculation loss by the ao docs not automatically warrant inference of concealment of inco…

M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank, Indore vs. The ACIT-3(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…statute no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Appellant also cited the following judgments in support of the above claim. i. Cement marketing Co. v/s ACST 124 15 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii. CIT vs Reliance petrochemicals 322 ITR 158 iii. CIT vs. SPK Steels 270 ITR 156 (MP) iv. CIT vs. Harshwardhan Chemicals 259 ITR 212 (Raj) v. CIT vs. HM Udhyog 159 Taxmann 394 vi. CIT vs. Kevin Process Technologies 40 Taxmann.com 249 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Pathankur Primary Co-op. Bank 40 Taxmann.com 283(Pun) viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…statute no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Appellant also cited the following judgments in support of the above claim. i. Cement marketing Co. v/s ACST 124 15 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii. CIT vs Reliance petrochemicals 322 ITR 158 iii. CIT vs. SPK Steels 270 ITR 156 (MP) iv. CIT vs. Harshwardhan Chemicals 259 ITR 212 (Raj) v. CIT vs. HM Udhyog 159 Taxmann 394 vi. CIT vs. Kevin Process Technologies 40 Taxmann.com 249 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Pathankur Primary Co-op. Bank 40 Taxmann.com 283(Pun) viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the…

DCIT - 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2310/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Neha PranjpeFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)Section 73

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “जी मुंबई जी जी” खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2310/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-4(2)(2) M/s. Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Room No.642, 6th Floor No.1001/1002, 10th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Atlanta Centre, Opp. Udyog Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Sonawala Lane…

Ace India Medical System, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Cit(A). Thus Order Of Cit(A) To Such Extent Is Erroneous In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri S.K Gogra (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.” The Co-ordinate Bench has followed the Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPK Steels (P.) Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 156, CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain (2010) 323 ITR 358 (Del.), the facts are identical. The Revenue has not distinguished these decisions. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we hereby direct the AO to delete the penalty. Thus, grounds raised in this appeal are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the o…

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)

…. Nepa Ltd. ( ITA No. 683/Ind/2013), order dated l3.10.2014, Laxmi Vilas Bank, 303 ITR 428 (Mad), CIT vs Societex, ITA No. 1497/2006 (Del), Indian Pesticides vs Income Tax Officer, 16 TTJ 101 (Chd), ACIT vs A.H.Wheeler, 132 ITD 34 (All), CIT vs S.P.K. Steels, 270 ITR 156 (MP), CIT vs Harparshad & Co. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del), CIT vs New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Pr. CIT vs Control and Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Del), wherein the decision in CIT vs. Zoom Communication P Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) was distinguished and considered CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2019/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…come, by taking a view that provisions of sec. 3; a deeming one, are applicable in the case of appellant. Thus, I find ratio of decisions given in case of Miss Harron Mahmood Adam vs. ACIT-12 (3) , Mumbai (ITA No. 1636/Mum/20 13), CIT vs. SPK Steels Pvt. Ltd (270 ITR 156 MP), Bharat R. Ruia cited and relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable on the facts in case of appellant and hence it does not attract provisions of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) as neither there is a case of furnishing of wrong particulars nor inaccurate particulars and in fact the adequacy and details available and declared so in the return…

CIT v. Reliance (270 ITR 156) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax