CIT v. Splender Construction

352 ITR 588High Court2013#24624 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2016.

Judgments citing CIT v. Splender Construction

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…instant case stands admitted by the Hon’ble Court (PB pgs. 61-62) is also relevant. Even though the same may not by itself be conclusive of the matter, as explained in CIT vs. Dharmshi B. Shah [2014] 366 ITR 140 (Guj) and CIT vs. Splender Construction [2013] 352 ITR 588 (Del), the assessee in the present case has in our view, as afore-stated, established to have an arguable case. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on June 30, 2016 (Amarjit Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 30.06.2016…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1316/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case.” 4. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT, DR Shri Sanjeev Jain argued and he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Splender Construction 352 ITR 588 (Del.). According to him, this issue where quantum proceedings have been considered by Hon’ble High Court and 4 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. Dy. CIT substantial question of law has been framed, it itself does not give rise to the facts that the issue is debatable. He referred to para 10 of Hon’ble High Court’s judgment, which reads as under:…

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6756/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…present case.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT, DR Shri B.C.S. Naik filed written notes on the arguments taken up by the department dated 22.03.2016, wherein he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Splender Construction 352 ITR 588 (Del.). According to him, this issue where quantum proceedings have been considered by Hon’ble High Court and substantial question of law has been framed, it itself does not give rise to the facts that the issue is debatable. He referred to para 10 of Hon’ble High Court’s judgment, which reads as under: “10. The issue was not debatable, as held b…