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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.?

116 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 250, Section 274.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53)

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2535/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 32(1), Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Plot No.96/100 Audumber Bungalow, Charkop Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. Pan: Aaapp-7172-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani : None Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/07/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. As Per Defect Memo Raised By The Registry, This Appeal Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Ld.Departmental Representative Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 30/07/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 31/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 271(1)(c)

…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 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…

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1989/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

…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 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…

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1988/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

…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 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…

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ सी ” , मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एंव "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/so D.C.Bothra & Co. LLP (CA), (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1st Floor, Opp. Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. PAN: AAACO8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. ITO, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-40002…

I- Serve System Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1044/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…lso 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." 10. 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…

Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Tarn Taran vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar

ITA 455/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nt delivered by Co-ordinate Bench Amritsar in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Atam Rice Mills, Zira Vs. Asst. CIT, Range, Firozepur. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills, (2008) 303 ITR 53 and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 and many others as per synopsis. The written synopsis submitted by the assessee reads as under: 1. That this is an appeal against the order u/s 271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of Rs.1,96,025/- and Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts w…

Sh. Jinder Pal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Amritsar

ITA 591/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nt delivered by Co-ordinate Bench Amritsar in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Atam Rice Mills, Zira Vs. Asst. CIT, Range, Firozepur. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills, (2008) 303 ITR 53 and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 and many others as per synopsis. The written synopsis submitted by the assessee reads as under: 1. That this is an appeal against the order u/s 271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of Rs.1,96,025/- and Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts w…

Karla Engine Components Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1357/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Heliwal

Section 271(1)(c)

…0 ITR 580 has held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable in respect of addition made on pure guesswork or estimations. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53). The Hon’ble High Court held that the proviso of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis. 5. Thus, in view of facts of the case and the aforesaid decisions, I find merit in the contentions raised by assessee. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is a…

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

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

…& Co. [(1983) 140 ITR 943 (Bom.)]; 7. CIT, Poona vs. B.D. Ramchandra (Bom.)150 ITR 242; 8. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (HC) (Bom.); 9. CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [2010] 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); & 10.CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P & H). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons as to why penalty is leviable under the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the AO has given a finding that the books of account of the assessee were not reliable for which the profit was estimated after confronting the assesse…

Income Tax Officer 13(2) (3), Mumbai vs. Swar Creative Art Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5992/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं. 5992/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-13(2)(4), R. No. 146B, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti SinghFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…nder section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. Reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimations and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. There are other catina of judgments by Hon’ble different High Courts taking similar view. The different benches of the Tribunal in several decisions have…

M/S Sher Mohammed & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward-26(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5986/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) M/S. Sher Mohammed & Co., Flat No. 23, 6A, Taxi Men Colony, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070. Pan: Aasfs7479M ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit- Ward (26(3), C-11, 5Th Floor, R.No. 501, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... .ितवाद0/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…nder section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimates and no concrete evidence of concealment is established, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. 8. There are other catina of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in support of the view that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied o…

ITO-28(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas, Mumbai

ITA 4934/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं.4934/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-28(2)(1), R. No. 326, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ...... अपीलाथ. /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas Shop No.22, Mahavir Bhakti, Plot No. 93, Sector-15, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan: Adbpt4067A ..... /ितवाद1/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod BhaskaranFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 271(1)(c)

…nder section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. Reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimations and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. There are other catina of judgments by Hon’ble different High Courts taking similar view. The different benches of the Tribunal in several decisions have…

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)

…embedded in alleged bogus purchases. The order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Revenue i.e. ITA No.6515/Mum/2016 decided on 13/10/2017. 5. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangurur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.,303 ITR 53(P&H) has held that where addition has been made on the basis of estimation and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Industries, reported as 360 ITR 581(Raj), taking a similar view held th…

ITO Ward1(4), Thane West vs. Smt. Jay Naresh Purswani, Thane

In the result, appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5048/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5048/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं. 5049/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Room No.11, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) – 400 604 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt.Jaya Naresh Purswani, 1703, Light Bridge, Glady Alwares Road, Hiranandani Meadows, Thane (W) – 400 604 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 271(1)(c)

…made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% by estimating escaped profit embedded in alleged bogus purchases. 5. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangurur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.,303 ITR 53(P&H) has held that where addition has been made on the basis of estimation and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Industries, reported as 360 ITR 581(Raj), taking a similar view held th…

ITO, Ward-1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5047/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5046/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं. 5047/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3),Thane, Room No.10, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) – 400 064 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop.Ashwin A. Panchal, B/2/402 Swastik Residency, G.B.Road, Kasarvadavali, Kavesar, Thane 400 607 Pan: Afzpa6269D ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt concealed or inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income. The Assessing Officer made addition by estimatingprofit that ostensibly escaped tax net. 5. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangurur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.,303 ITR 53(P&H) has held that where addition has been made on the basis of estimation and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Industries, reported as 360 ITR 581(Raj), taking a similar view held th…

ITO, Ward-1(3), Thane vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5046/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं. 5047/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3),Thane, Room No.10, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) – 400 064 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop.Ashwin A. Panchal, B/2/402 Swastik Residency, G.B.Road, Kasarvadavali, Kavesar, Thane 400 607 Pan: Afzpa6269D ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt concealed or inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income. The Assessing Officer made addition by estimatingprofit that ostensibly escaped tax net. 5. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangurur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.,303 ITR 53(P&H) has held that where addition has been made on the basis of estimation and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Industries, reported as 360 ITR 581(Raj), taking a similar view held th…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6th Floor 11th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN/GIR No.AAACT0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Ms. Hema Sharma Date of Hearing 18/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29/03/20…

Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5486/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Talwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…therein on that basis. I rely upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT 7 ITA.No.5486/Del./2018 Shri Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi. vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P&H). No definite finding of fact have been given by assessing officer that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in this regard. Therefore, by mere agreeing to additional income on account of enhanced net profit, by itself is no ground to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income…

Rajesh Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1765 & 2049/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Prop. The Income Tax Officer, Rajesh Const. Co. H.No.10, Ward-4, vs. New Anaj Mandi, Indri Karnal. Karnal. PAN ADNPK5057H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2019 ORDER Both the appeals by the same assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 29th Dec…

Rajesh Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1765/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1765 & 2049/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Prop. The Income Tax Officer, Rajesh Const. Co. H.No.10, Ward-4, vs. New Anaj Mandi, Indri Karnal. Karnal. PAN ADNPK5057H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2019 ORDER Both the appeals by the same assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 29th Dec…

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

I- Serve System Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Tarn Taran vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar

Sh. Jinder Pal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Amritsar

Karla Engine Components Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

Income Tax Officer 13(2) (3), Mumbai vs. Swar Creative Art Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

M/S Sher Mohammed & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward-26(3), Mumbai

ITO-28(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas, Mumbai

M/S. J Kumar -Rps Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

ITO Ward1(4), Thane West vs. Smt. Jay Naresh Purswani, Thane

ITO, Ward-1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

ITO, Ward-1(3), Thane vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

Rajesh Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal