CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Limited

256 ITR 683High Court2002#4485 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Limited authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the High Court or Supreme Court.

26

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. Reliance Petro Products · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · substantial question of law · section 260A

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 43b(f)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)section 211section 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)house property incomesection 140full and true disclosuresection 271(l)(c)additional depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Limited

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The Addl. CIT- Range-5, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 484/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) It was held that no penalty could be levied when two views are possible. 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) It has been held that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particular…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 754/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) It was held that no penalty could be levied when two views are possible. 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) It has been held that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particular…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 404/IND/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) 3. 3. CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) CIT Vs. Amarnath (143 CTR 148) (All.) It was held that no penalty could be levied when two views are possible. 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) 4. 4. CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) CIT Vs. Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683) (Mad.) It has been held that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particular…

Blue Star Ltd (Blue Star Infotech Ltd Now Merged With Blue Star Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Blue Star Limited (Blue Star The Assistant Commissioner Infotech Limited Now Merged Of Income Tax Circle 9(2)(1), बिधम/ With Blue Star Limited) Mumbai. Band Box House, 4Th Floor, Vs. 254-D, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai Maharashtra 400030 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacb6385J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…(Orissa High Court); • CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.[2011] 334 ITR 367 (Delhi HC) • CIT v. Amtek Auto Ltd [2013] 352 ITR 394 (P&H)(HC) • CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd [2003] 259 ITR 212 (HC Raj) • CIT V. Sivananda Steels Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 683 (HC Madras) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds, as also all reliefs consequential thereto. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal. 2.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…d litigation but such acceptance cannot put him in a position worse than another to contest the departmental view and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) cannot be levied simply on this basis. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following case laws: 256 ITR 683, CIT vs. Sivananda Steels Ltd. reported (Madras H.C.), where penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) was deleted even when the assessee had accepted departmental view. ITAT Delhi Bench judgment in the case o f ACIT vs. Shaiiesh Mittal, copy placed at pages 93-101 o f the paper book filed in assessment year 2010-11. ITA T Amritsar Bench judgment in the case o f D…

Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7491/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B. R. Baskaran & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7491/Mum/2013

For Appellant: Bhakti Vaidya
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…stant case, two possible views can be taken. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in the case of (i) CIT Vs G. D. Naidu and others [165 ITR 63) (Mad)]and (ii) CIT Vs Sivananda Steels (256 ITR 683 (Mad)] and submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative [hereinafter referred to as “the DR”] has refuted the said contentions of the learned AR and submitted that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of income to avoid payment of tax and hence, the order of the l…