CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper (332 ITR 158), spanning 2016 to 2024.

332 ITR 158Supreme Court of India2010#10534 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper authority for?

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically initiated merely because an addition was made to the return of income. Making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Reliance Petro Products · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · inaccurate particulars · addition to income · incorrect claim · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty proceedings · addition not automatic

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…ely because an addition was made to the return of income, it does not mean that penalty proceeding has to be automatically initiated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 332 ITR 158(SC) and in the case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (SC). 9. Per contra, Shri Rignesh Das, Ld. SR DR submitted that the assesse had not responded to the query raised by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding in respect of working of MAT income, which was clear manifest of the fact that the assessee had deliberatelyneither…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…assessee furnished ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 4 inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee in support its claim relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 332 ITR 158. 6.1 The assessee further submitted that the penalty proceeding is different from the assessment proceedings. Before imposing the penalty, the AO should consider all the relevant material afresh. The assessee in support of its claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Anva Ali reported in 76 ITR 696. 6.2 The assesse…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/RJT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2828/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

For Appellant: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mehul K. Patel, AR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…ot mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income/concealed particulars of income. The assessee in support of its contention relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Reliance Petro Products Ltd reported in 332 ITR 158. 7. The assessee also submitted that it had claimed the depreciation on the basis of the audit report under section 44AB which was signed by the tax auditor of the company. 8. However, the AO disagreed with the submission of the assessee and held the assessee guilty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The AO in confirming the penalty…

Buildbyte.Com (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 7350/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…that the assessee has not furnished all the details whatever was required for making the claim. We noted that the case of the assessee is duly covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroprodcuts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 158 wherein the court held that “Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself, would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c)”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has clearly laid down that by any stretch of imagination, making an incorrec…

M/S. Hotz Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 271(1)

…matter there is no false claim that was preferred by the assessee and it is only the treatment the AO had given to the expenses that lead to the additions. While respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Chemicals 332 ITR 158 (SC), we hold that penalty in this matter cannot be sustained. With this view of the matter, we delete the penalty. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2017 (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.10.2017 *Kavita Arora…

N.. Jamnadas & Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (Cen)-III, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed,

ITA 2930/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A.2930/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) N Jamnadas & Co., The Dy.Commissioner Of 16, Bank Street, Income Tax, फनधभ/ Fort, Central Circle-39, Mumbai-400001 Room No.32, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Applicant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aacfn8427G अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Harsh Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N P Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.1.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 27.1.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 28.3.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Issue Raised In All The Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Cit On The Ground That The Ao Has Failed To Initiate Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Re-Assessment Order.

For Respondent: Shri N P Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…facts, assessee submitted that expenditure was disallowed on estimated basis and therefore, there is no question of levy of penalty. The assessee has also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the-case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products(P)Ltd reported in 332 ITR 158. The assessee submitted that the order of the assessing officer is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence provision of section 263 is not applicable”. 5. The CIT, after considering the contentions and submissions of the assessee and rejecting the same, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the AO was…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

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 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…g of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee. In support of this proposition reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroprodcuts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 158 (SC). It is submitted by the learned A.R. of the assessee that in view of the above factual and legal position of the case, no penalty was leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and prayed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty be upheld. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully consi…

Shri Nitin Kumar Kuchhal, Shamli vs. ITO, Shamli

ITA 1306/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri L. P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…count of ensuring peace of mind. On a consideration of these facts and evidences, we find that the explanation of the assessee considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd and Price Water Cooper 332 ITR 158 Hon'ble Supreme Court can be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty order is directed to be quashed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12th of May 2016. (L. P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:- 12/05/2016 *R. Naheed…