CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd.

335 ITR 558High Court2011#11512 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd.

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3021/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…m capital loss is alsodebatable issue. To support such contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. (2013) 261 CTR 449 (Del); Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Rubber UdvoctVikasPrivate Ltd. 335 ITR 558 (P&H) and Supreme Court in CIT Vs Reliance PetroproductsPrivate Limited. 322 ITR 158 (SC). In other alternative submission, the assessee stated that when assessee furnished all details of expenditure as well as income in its return and merely such expenditure has not been accepted by revenue authority that itself will not attract penalty under…

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…of the Act and in support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158, decisions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. 335 ITR 558, CIT Vs. Amar Nath reported in 173 Taxmann 395 (P&H), CIT Vs. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. 322 ITR 73 (P&H), and decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of R. Vasudevan Vs. DCIT 447 ITR 672 . It was accordingly submitted that the penalty so levied and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be set aside and necessary relief be provid…

M/S.Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…(Mum)(URO); 9) Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No. 5988/Del/2016); 10) CIT vs. Filatex India Limited [2015] 229 Taxman 555 (Del); 11) CIT vs. Shervani Hospitalities Limited [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P.) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 558 (P&H); 13) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 101 (Del); 14) CIT vs. Larsen and Turbo Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 502 (Bom); 15) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC); and 16) Waman Hari Pethe Sons Private Limited vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 2730/Mum/2016) 18. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee’s contention that the levy…

Gouranga Cement Pvt. Ltd., Barakar vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Bankura

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in terms of above

ITA 330/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 72

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2010-11 Gouranga Cement Pvt.Ltd., DCIT, Circle-3, बनाम Patpur, P.O.& Dist.Bankura “Bilash Bhawan”, / V/s. Pin 722 101 Candmaridanga, [PAN No.AACCG 1513 F] Bankura, Pin-712 101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Soumyajit Dasgupt, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pro…

M/S Miss Hill Education Society, Gwalior vs. ACIT Circle-1, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…enalty of upto 300%. 3.3 Qua the reliance placed by the appellant on following decisions/judgments: “Yogesh R Desai v.ACIT”, 2 ITR 267 Mum Trib. (i) “Silicon Graphics System (India) v. CIT” , 122 TTJ Del. (ii) Trib. 800. “CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd.”, 335 ITR 558 ( P (iii) & H). “Reliance Petro Products Ltd. v. CIT”, 322 ITR 158 SC (iv) “KC Builders v. ACIT”, 265 ITR 562 SC. (v) “CIT v. Siddartha Enterprises”, 184 Taxman 460 (vi) (P&H) it seen that they have been relied without demonstrating as to how these are applicable in the facts of the I.T.A No. 90/Agra/2016 7 present appeal. That apart, on carefu…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…ed. Therefore, it was held that it concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of f• mi i "^T- M e p:-J~ ~"J Sonspvt. ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 125 (Del)(HC), fa-** aoc agin riill because the issue was debatable. In the case of CIT v. Rubber fcL [2011] 335 ITR 558 (P&H) (HC) penalty was held not imposable dam was made in a bona fide way for setting off carry forward business loss f^r~=- --^ :^-^rne arising on sale of business assets. In the instant appeal it is clearly . . -ai ;he appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the explanation of 1*,^ appellant was not bonafV. ird the claim of co…

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

…Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) >- 322 ITR 80, CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (P & H High Court) 288ITR 670, CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 359 ITR 101, CIT vs. DCM Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi HC) >- 335 ITR 558, CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (P&H High Court) >- 349 ITR 112, Karan Raghav Export P Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 293 ITR 524, CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Madras H.C.). >- 352 ITR 394, CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. ( P &H High Court) >- 347 ITR 478, CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. ( P &H High Court). >- 329 ITR 483…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…as on account of bonafide mistake and time to file revised return for correction of mistake had expired and aforesaid order of the Tribunal was also upheld by the High Court.” 8.6 Also Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. 335 ITR 558 (P&H) has held that making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it was established that the assessee had acted with a mala fide intention or had claimed deductions being aware of the well settled legal position 8.7 Applying the above judicial position, we are of the considered opinion that no pena…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mangu Ram Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4929/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 4929/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kr. Gupta, CA and Arun Kr. Jain , CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna , Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that in the present case, assessee had wrongly claimed deduction while being aware of well settled legal position, in which case penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted as laid down in CIT(A) vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas P. Ltd. 335 ITR 558.” 02. Assessee is individual filed his return of income on 30th July, 2003 declaring total income of Rs. 43,58,110/-. In the return of income along with long term capital gain of Rs. 46,24,806/- was offered after claiming ACIT V Shri Mangu Ram Bansal A Y 2003-04 deduction u/s 54F was claimed on account of purchase of new residential house propert…