CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

335 ITR 259High Court2011#668 most cited

What is CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals authority for?

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed if the amount of tax sought to be evaded is nil under Explanation 4(c), such as when the assessment results in a refund even after an addition to income. The conditions stipulated in the explanations to section 271(1)(c) must be unambiguously met for penalty imposition.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals · section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 4(c) · penalty for concealment · furnishing inaccurate particulars · tax sought to be evaded · nil tax liability · assessment refund · survey action

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115BBESection 69Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

surrender of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274section 271(1)section 133alevy of penaltysection 271section 133

Judgments citing CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 730/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 729/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 727/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 726/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 725/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ent or non disclosure as the offered income has been accepted in the hands of assessee and penalty was not leviable on the said income offered. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) and also on the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Anand Suresh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.353/PUN/2015 and in Shri Suresh N. Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA No.354/PUN/2015, both relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 13.01.2017. He also placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the following decisions:- i) Ravi Sud Vs. ACIT (2015) 39…

Rajendra Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kishangarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 559/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar & Isha Kanungo (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Add’l CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…is no difference between the income offered by the assessee and income assessed by the AO, then the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 and submitted that the Hon’ble High court has held that when the assessee disclosed the income in return of the income subsequent to the survey, the penalty cannot be levied on surmises, conjectures and on the possibilities, that the assessee would not have offered the same if no survey had been carried out. Thus, the Ld. AR has contended that…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…h concealment of non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax. It further held that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Del) had endorsed this view. 5.1. We hold that the concealment of income would start only after the return was filed or subsequent to filing of belated return when the department detected certain income as escaped. The assessee’s case would not fall under Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the f…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…h concealment of non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax. It further held that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Del) had endorsed this view. 5.1. We hold that the concealment of income would start only after the return was filed or subsequent to filing of belated return when the department detected certain income as escaped. The assessee’s case would not fall under Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the f…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…a for deciding the matter. v) Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 57 Delhi [DoD: 04/11/2016] vi) CIT Vs Meghjibhai Popat Bhai Virani (2013) 217 Taxman 35 (Gujarat HC) vii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) viii) SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 Delhi ix) Mahabir Prasad Jagdish Prasad Vs CST 27 STC 337 (All) x) Pondy Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (2007) 14 SOT (Delhi) [DoD: 30'II 2006] xi) GTC Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 284 (Mum) (SB)[DoD: 07/03/2017] xii) DCIT Vs Krishna Yadav (2011) 12 taxmann.com 4 (Hyd) 31/03/2011] xiii) CIT Vs Kapil Nagpal (2015) 63 taxman…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…2,Jaipur Vs. Dhiloon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (Punj) it was held that where additions were made on estimate basis and department failed to prove concealment of income penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) held that where addition on surmises, conjectures and possibilities on estimate there could be no penalty under section 271(1)(c). 5.5 It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) relied on judgment in case of CIT-6 Vs. Usha International Ltd. 254 CTR 509 which is distinguishable on facts. In that case in survey discrepancy in cash, stock…

Roop Kishanchand Khemani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the statement has been disclosed in the return of income also and 10 Shri Roop Kishanchand Khemani & Shri Kumar Satur Nathani hence no penalty shall be leviable in such kind of situation as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals (335 ITR 259). 17. The Ld D.R, however, submitted that the provisions of Explanation 5A has been discussed by Ld CIT(A) in paragraph 12 of his order. She submitted that the first appellate authority’s power is co-terminus with that of the AO and hence the Explanation 5A has been invoked in the instant cases. She submitted that the voluntary offer of income a…

Shri Kumar Satur Nathani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the statement has been disclosed in the return of income also and 10 Shri Roop Kishanchand Khemani & Shri Kumar Satur Nathani hence no penalty shall be leviable in such kind of situation as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals (335 ITR 259). 17. The Ld D.R, however, submitted that the provisions of Explanation 5A has been discussed by Ld CIT(A) in paragraph 12 of his order. She submitted that the first appellate authority’s power is co-terminus with that of the AO and hence the Explanation 5A has been invoked in the instant cases. She submitted that the voluntary offer of income a…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S J.P Nirman Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 883/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.883/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit, Cir-5/Kol, Vs. M/S J.P.Nirman Pvt. Ltd., P-7, Chowringhee Square, 19, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 7666 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Ku. Kureel, Jcit, Sr-Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, Kolkata In Appeal No.32/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-5/11-12/Kol, Dated 22.11.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.05.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The A Survey U/S 133A Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted At The Office Premises Of The Assessee On 14.01.2008 & It Was Found That The Assessee Had Certain Transactions Which Were Out Of Books. During The Course Of Assessment It Was Found That The Assessee Had Disclosed The Unexplained Income/Receipts As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Account. The Cash Received Was Actually On Money Received By The Assessee For Sale Of Flats The Assessee Did Not Disclosed The Unaccounted Income In The Manner In Which It Has Been M/S J.P.Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Earned. Accordingly Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Was Imposed By The Assessing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Ku. Kureel, JCIT, SR-DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…dated 29.11.2010. Therefore, there was no variation in the returned income and assessed income. 8. The appellant has relied on the case of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals in ITA No.1058 on 2009 reported in 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) and 244 CTR-51. The Hon'ble High Court has held that it is not the case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income, as in the income tax return, particulars of income have been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the income tax return. It further held that the question is whether the particulars of…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. While considering the interpretation of this ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 10 provision, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del), stated that: “It is to be kept in mind that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Subsection (1) of Section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. While considering the interpretation of this ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 10 provision, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del), stated that: “It is to be kept in mind that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Subsection (1) of Section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. While considering the interpretation of this ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 10 provision, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del), stated that: “It is to be kept in mind that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Subsection (1) of Section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO…

Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF), Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1244/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…f the Act had not been discussed. We also hold that the reasoning of the assessee had to disclose the undisclosed income because of the search is also not in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of CIT vs Sas Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under :- “ 14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue relying upon the expression in the course of any proceedings under this Act occurring in sub- section (1) of section 271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the a…

Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…f the Act had not been discussed. We also hold that the reasoning of the assessee had to disclose the undisclosed income because of the search is also not in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of CIT vs Sas Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under :- “ 14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue relying upon the expression in the course of any proceedings under this Act occurring in sub- section (1) of section 271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the a…

A.C.I.T., Circle-39, Kolkata vs. M/S M.B.Jewellers & Sons, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2819/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the issue involved in the case of the assessee was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements. In one of such judicial pronouncements relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appals) in the case of CIT –vs.- Sas Pharmaceuticals [335 ITR 259], it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that income surrendered during the course of I.T.A. No. 2819/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 4 survey having been declared by the assessee in his return of income and tax thereon having been paid by him, there was no case of concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income,…