CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

303 ITR 53High Court2008#925 most cited

What is CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · estimated addition · no penalty on estimate basis · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · 271(1)(c) without concrete evidence · levy of penalty

Also reported as

171 Taxmann 320

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 133(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)deletion of penaltyfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISINGS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 76/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISING PVT LTD, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 75/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

ITO WARD-14(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VINIPUL INORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7970/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…d that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been 4 expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a simil…

HITESH JAYANTILAL MEHTA(HUF),KALBADEVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8369/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 8074/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 8073/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41.2.2, MUMBAI vs. IN COACH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7993/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Room No.834, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafi5110R V/S In Coach Builders, Plot No.1A, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (W), ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400083

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…held that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view…

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…also of the considered view that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in relying on Explanation I(B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act to raise a presumption against the assessee." 11. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held as under : "In order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of a…

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 70/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jagtar Singh Brar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nehru Mandi, Baghapurana, Ward-3, Moga Punjab-142038 [PAN: ACCPS 7448A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A. : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Respondent by Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 25…

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…e Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT 7 vs. Sara Sae (P) Ltd. (ii) ITAT Delhi Bench in Pawan Kumar Glupta in ITA Nos.3504 & 3505/Del/2024 (iii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj.); (iv) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and (v) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 7. Thus, as noted above, the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty levied in the year under consideration. 8. In the result, the app…

SAMIR N SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 19(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4393/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarsamir N. Shah, A/35, Jeevan Villa Chs Narayan, Dabholkar Road, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aazps9084M V/S Income Tax Officer – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lower Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ld that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under 4 section 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

MUBARAK HUSSAIN FIRTA SHAIKH,SAKINAKA, MUMBAI vs. CIT, 41(1)(3), APPEAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmubarak Hussain Firta Shaikh, 23/B Abdul Rashid Compound, Nr. Ramlila Compound Khairani Road, Sakinaka, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Awgps3438J V/S Ito – 26(2)(3), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Awadhesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ld 4 that where an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, no penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar…

SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

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

ITA 1221/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.1221/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2010-11) Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Village Rashid Garh, Thana Bhawan, Shamli, UP 247777 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: CFMPR-2047-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Shamli, UP 247777 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Gaurav Sachdeva "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 19/05/2025 आदेश/O…

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bright Enterprises Private ACIT, Limited, Circle-5(1), MBD House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, JAO DCIT, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi. (PAN:AAACB9469K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sudhir K Sehgal, Advocate Department by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by Assessee is arising out of order passed by National Faceless Ap…

BALASUNDARAM THIRUMAVALAVAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 552/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 551 & 552/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balasundaram Thirumavalavan, Ito, No.128, Senniantham South, Vs. Ward 5, Sethiathoppu, Coimbatore. Chidambaram Tk, Cuddalore – 608 702. [Pan: Aljpt-1706-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

…has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable and the similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.551/Chny/2025 is partly allowed and the ITA No.552/Chny/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2025 at Chennai. (मनु कुमार िग"र) (एस. आर…

BALASUNDARAM THIRUMAVALAVAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 551/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 551 & 552/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balasundaram Thirumavalavan, Ito, No.128, Senniantham South, Vs. Ward 5, Sethiathoppu, Coimbatore. Chidambaram Tk, Cuddalore – 608 702. [Pan: Aljpt-1706-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

…has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable and the similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.551/Chny/2025 is partly allowed and the ITA No.552/Chny/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2025 at Chennai. (मनु कुमार िग"र) (एस. आर…

PALANISAMY DEVI ,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.42/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 v. Palanisamy Devi, The ACIT, H-102, Periyar Nagar, Circle-1, Erode-638 001. Erode. [PAN: ACKPD 5055 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. P.M.Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 25.03.2025 : घोष…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…ngredients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars." 13. In connection with the above, reliance is further placed on following decisions: (i) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P &H) held that when the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench Rajkot in the case of ITO vs…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…dients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars.\"\n13. In connection with the above, reliance is further placed on following decisions:\n(i) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur\nVanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P &H) held that when the addition of income is\nbased on estimate, penalty is not leviable\n(ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel\n261 ITR 216 (Guj) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be sustained in respect\nof estimated addition.\n(iii) Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench Rajkot in the case of I…

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6