CIT v. S.P Viz Construction

176 ITR 47High Court#19641 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing CIT v. S.P Viz Construction

DCIT(TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1720/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakar Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit(Tds)-1(1), M/S Air India Ltd. Room No.802, K.G. Mittal Taxation Section, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Aayurvedic Hospital Finance Building, Air India Vs. Building, Charni Road, Ltd. Old Airport, Kalina, Mumbai-400002 Santacruz, Mumbai-400029 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaaca9213E

Section 194Section 201(1)Section 220Section 271C

…nt and independent. Our view finds supports from the ratio laid down, though u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in decision of the Tribunal in M/s Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1209/Mum/2014) order dated 23/11/2015 and further in CIT vs S.P Viz Construction company 176 ITR 47 (Patna) and K.C. Builders vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (Supreme Court). We are of the view that where the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was levied and after deleting the quantum addition, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand in itself if the addition made in the assessment i…

ACIT CC 25, MUMBAI vs. PARLE BOTTLING P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 1998-99 Acit, M/S Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Cc-25, Room No.404, Western Express Highway, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri (East), Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-4000099 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacp8417H Shri Arvind Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Firoze Ahdhyarajina

Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, in our humble opinion, the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the penalty. Our view further finds support from the decision and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P Viz Construction company 176 ITR 47 (Patna) and K.C. Builders vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (Supreme Court). We are of the view where the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was levied and after deleting the quantum addition, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand in itself if the addition made in the assessment itself…

LATE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA THROUGH L.H SHRI SUSHIL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 20(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2014[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 1988-89 Late Shri Mahavir Gupta Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Shri Ward-12(3)(1), बनाम/ Sushil Gupta, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 161-C, Mittal Tower, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalpg1065E

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

…been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, in our humble opinion, the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the penalty. Our view further finds support from the decision and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P Viz Construction company 176 ITR 47 (Patna) and K.C. Builders vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (Supreme Court). We are of the view where the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was levied and after deleting the quantum addition, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand in itself if the addition made in the assessment itself…

NEELA P. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 9, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2009-10 Smt. Neela P. Doshi, The Asst. Comm. Of Income Acme Ghar, 19 K.D. Road, Tax, बनाम/ Ville Parle (W), Central Circle-9, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpd6490Q

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, in our humble opinion, the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the penalty. Our view further finds support from the decision and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P Viz Construction company 176 ITR 47 (Patna) and K.C. Builders vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (Supreme Court). We are of the view where the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was levied and after deleting the quantum addition, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. 21 Smt. Neela P. Doshi Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand in itself if the addition made i…

CIT v. S.P Viz Construction (176 ITR 47) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax