CIT v. Smt.Rita Malhotra

154 ITR 550High Court1985#22753 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt.Rita Malhotra

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

…atable tax position DCIT v. Maradia Copper Extrusion (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 748 (Ahmedabad -Trib.) xx. Pertaining to non-applicability of penal consequences in case claim of expense was disallowed in appellate proceedings-CIT v. Rita Malhotra (1985) 154 ITR 550 (Del.) xxi. Pertaining to non-applicability of penal consequences in case disallowance was made due to difference of opinion-CIT v Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 xxii. Pertains to failure of revenue in showcasing the specific action u/s 270A(9) - Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd v. DCIT [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (…

Shreechand Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1984/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 801B

…, Oxford Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. ITO, ITA No. 5100/Del/2011, CIT vrs. 23 I.T.A. No. 1982-1985/Mum/2014 Shreechand Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Shreechand Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Shyama A. Bijapurkar, ITA No. 842/2010 (Del HC) and CIT vrs. Smt Rita Malhotra 154 ITR 550 (Del). It was also submitted by Ld. AR that there was no ‘concealment of income’ by the assessee as assessee itself offered income for taxation. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act can be levied if appellant either ‘concealing income’ or furnishing ‘inaccurate particulars of income’. As per the provision, the penalty cannot be levied on ‘estima…

M/S Oxford Softech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5100/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2004-05 Oxford Softech P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 13(1) A 6/3, Vasant Vihar New Delhi New Delhi 110 057 Pan: Aaaco 4916 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P.Damkanunjna, Sr.D.R
Section 271(1)Section 80

…he assessee. He relied on the following case laws. i. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). ii. Haryana Financial Corporation vs. DCIT Chandigarh B Bench in ITA 211/Ch./2010 order dt. 9th September,2010. iii. CIT vs. Smt.Rita Malhotra 154 ITR 550 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Shyama A Bijapurkar ITA 842/2010 (Del) judgement dt. 13.7.2010 4. The Ld.D.R. Mr.P.Damkanunjna on the other hand strongly opposed the contentions of the assessee. He took this Bench to the assessment order and argued that a blatantly wrong claim has been made by the assessee and hence it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate pa…

CIT v. Smt.Rita Malhotra (154 ITR 550) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax