CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

Alpa Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeealpa Rajesh Desai Vs Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai 15/32, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chambers, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan : Aelpd3053K Appellant Respondent

…60 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. A similar view has been expressed by Ho’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(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. 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 vie…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. ITO, Wad 19(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA Nos.4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. Income Tax Officer, 126/8, Dr. M.G. Ward 19(1)(2), Mahimtura Marg, Matrumandir Income Tax 3rd Kumbharwada, Office, Opp, Bhatia Mumbai – 400004 Hospital Tardeo, Mumbai – 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ADWPC8702A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ravi Gupta Respondent by : Ashok…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. ITO, Wad 19(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA Nos.4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. Income Tax Officer, 126/8, Dr. M.G. Ward 19(1)(2), Mahimtura Marg, Matrumandir Income Tax 3rd Kumbharwada, Office, Opp, Bhatia Mumbai – 400004 Hospital Tardeo, Mumbai – 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ADWPC8702A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ravi Gupta Respondent by : Ashok…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. ITO, Wad 19(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA Nos.4402 to 4404/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. Income Tax Officer, 126/8, Dr. M.G. Ward 19(1)(2), Mahimtura Marg, Matrumandir Income Tax 3rd Kumbharwada, Office, Opp, Bhatia Mumbai – 400004 Hospital Tardeo, Mumbai – 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ADWPC8702A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ravi Gupta Respondent by : Ashok…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by 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(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable 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 i…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by 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(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable 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 i…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by 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(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable 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 i…

Jatin Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1St Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aaafj-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/09/2023, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ In Short ‘The Act’].

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ F ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1st Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. PAN: AAAFJ-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. ACIT-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Ra…

Income Tax Officer Ward-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.2548/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–26(2)(1), Mumbai v/s Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries 19, Sugar Manjil, 1st Floor ……………. Respondent 103/105, Sherif Deviji Street Mumbai 400 003 PAN – AAKFS5821R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing – 29/02/2024 Date of Order – 20/03/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challeng…

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

…e decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of oth…

M/S Supertech Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Supertech Construction Company, C/o B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ranjit Avenue, Near A-Block, Gurudwara, Amritsar - 143001 [PAN: ABIFS4977R] …………… Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income- Vs Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Ajudiya Manish Date Conclusion of hearing : 04.12.2023 Pronouncement of order : 05.12.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appe…

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

…le High Courts wherein the Hon’ble High Courts have upheld the action of Tribunal deleting penalty levied on estimated quantum addition as under: - “CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580) (Raj) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53) (P & H) CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110) (Guj).” 7. Thus, as noted (supra), 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 to the tune of Rs.5,27,640/-. 8. In the result, the appeal…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of th…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of th…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…360 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 Ho'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 leviable. 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 vi…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…360 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 Ho'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 leviable. 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 vi…

H K Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(2)(1) Current Juridiction, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…360 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 Ho'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 leviable. 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 vie…

M/S. Metal Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1139/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S. Metal Traders, B/307, E/3, Highway Park, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Aagfm-3851-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 33(2)(3), C-12, 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

…Some of the decisions, wherein penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on estimated additions has held to be unsustainable are as under:- (i) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580(Raj); (ii) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H; (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj); (iv) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramnarain And Company vs. ACIT (supra), ACIT vs. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd.(supra) and ACIT vs. M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd. by placing reliance on the aforesaid d…

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record…