CIT v. S.Krishnaswamy& Sons.

219 ITR 157High Court1996#6311 most cited

What is CIT v. S.Krishnaswamy& Sons. authority for?

Where a taxing provision allows for two reasonable interpretations, the interpretation that favours the assessee should be applied.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. S.Krishnaswamy& Sons · 219 ITR 157 · reasonable construction · assessee favour · taxing provision · interpretation · benevolent construction · CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.

Judgments citing CIT v. S.Krishnaswamy& Sons.

S.M.ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

S.M.ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

S.M.ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

S.M.ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

S.M.ENTERPRISERA,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1),, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

S M ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…esh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported in 205 ITR 607, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is leviable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, reported in 219 ITR 157 and the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shuorajsingh B. Chauhan, 41 SOT 453. It was the further submission that in respect of non-striking off of the relevant portion of the penalty notice, 7 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 the issues had been held in favour of the revenue in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd., 93 ta…

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…d cold storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 8 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. ITR 492. Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT (All) 232 ITR 588 CIT vs. Md. WarasatHussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415 CIT vs. Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 CIT vs. Svvarup Cold Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. R…

M/S. J KUMAR -RPS JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/MUM/2019[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5081/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. J. Kumar –Rps Joint Venture, C-113, Shyam Kamal, Agarwal Market, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057 Pan: Aabtj1167E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit Central Circle -5(1), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 271(1)(c)

…drawn support from the following decisions to wreck the argument of assessee:- (i) Addl. CIT vs. Chandrakantha, 295 ITR 607(MP) (ii) CIT vs. Md. Warasat Hussain, 171 ITR 405(Pat), (iii)AM Shah & Co. Vs. CIT,238 ITR 415(Guj) (iv) CIT vs. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad) None of the judgments referred by CIT(A) is from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.,88 ITR 192 has held that where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that 4 construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. Thus, in view of above, we…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HONDA TRADING CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as infructuous owing to the adjudication on merits of the case

ITA 747/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Vs M/S Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch5556J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ment has to be raised. 13. He also relied on the following case laws: " Addl. CIT Vs Chandrakantha and Another (MP) 205 ITR 607 " CIT Vs Md. Warasat Hussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 " A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 238 ITR 415 " CIT Vs Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad.) 219 ITR 157 14. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. We have gone through the Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) deals with penalty in respect of adjustment on account of transfer pricing. The provisions of the section read as under: “[Explanation 7.—Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into…

S4 INTERIOR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ITR 607 (MP) (iii). Addl. CIT Vs. Lakshmi Industries & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 492 (All) (iv). CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (2007) 291 ITR 202 (Guj) It was averred by the ld. D.R, that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any force and did not merit acceptance, thus, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives of…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…Account and therefore, there is no option but to make estimated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgment…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…Account and therefore, there is no option but to make estimated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgment…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 953/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…Account and therefore, there is no option but to make estimated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgment…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 952/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…Account and therefore, there is no option but to make estimated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgment…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…Account and therefore, there is no option but to make estimated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgment…

LAXMI VENTRUES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5412/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5412/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-05) M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Pvt.Ltd., Tax- Range 6(3), Vs. 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge, Mumbai. Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./Pan No. :Aaacl1082G अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Haridas Bhat प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri Saurabh Deshpande सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.8.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.9.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 22.9.2015 Pertaining To A.Y.2004-05. 2. The Assessment, In This Case Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 28.11.2006 At An Income Of Rs.4,67,13,230/-Against The Returned Income Of Rs.26,64,360/- Filed By The Assessee By Making Various Additions Inter-Alia On Account Of Estimation Of Income Of Bhilai Plant & Tedessara Unit Amounting To Rs.10,00,000/- & Disallowance Of Rs.3,50,000/- On Account Of Depreciation In Respect Of Freehold Land. In The Quantum Proceedings The Ld. Cit(A) Directed The Ao To Restrict The Income At 5% Of Sales Of The Said Two Units Beside Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,00,893/-. In The Further Appeal Before The Itat, The Disallowance Of Depreciation Was Confirmed. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice To The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) On 4.1.2010 For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Finally The Penalty Of Rs.2,27,813/- Was Levied Of The 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded By An Order Dated 23.3.2010 Passed Under Section 271(1)( C ) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…each case. Where the concealment of income is apparent from record, there is no reason why the penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) cannot be imposed for concealment of income, Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following: i) CIT vs Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 i) Samsundar Bhan Sadh Vs. CIT 188 ITR 638(All). iii) Vidya Sagar Oswal Vs. CITR 108 ITR 861(P&H). iv) CIT Vs. Handloorn Emporium 282 ITR 431 (All) v) CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 (Jharkhand) Further, if the view that penalty cannot be levied where income is computed based on estimation is followed it will lend a premium to evasion b…

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…therefore, the penalty may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that penalty can be levied even on a estimate basis for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157, A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) and CIT vs Mohammad Warasat Hussain, 177 ITR 405 (Pat.). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, declared income of `6,24,135/- in its return filed on 30/09/2009. A survey action w…

TAURUS TRANSPORT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 13(2), MUMBAI

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4978/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…therefore, the penalty may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that penalty can be levied even on a estimate basis for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157, A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) and CIT vs Mohammad Warasat Hussain, 177 ITR 405 (Pat.). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, declared income of `6,24,135/- in its return filed on 30/09/2009. A survey action w…

CIT v. S.Krishnaswamy& Sons. (219 ITR 157) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax