CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110High Court1996#690 most cited

What is CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. · 221 ITR 110 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty for estimated income · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · section 274 · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) estimate

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 274Section 148Section 250Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)deletion of penaltysection 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISINGS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 76/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid deci…

M/S. PERQ ADVERTISING PVT LTD, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 75/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid deci…

ITO WARD-14(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VINIPUL INORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7970/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 8. Thus, respectfully following the afores…

HITESH JAYANTILAL MEHTA(HUF),KALBADEVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8369/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue of the 5 justification for imposing a penalty when the addition is based on an estimate is no longer res integra. 11. Thus, on both counts, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 8074/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid…

CHANDAN DHINGADMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 8073/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41.2.2, MUMBAI vs. IN COACH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7993/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Room No.834, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafi5110R V/S In Coach Builders, Plot No.1A, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (W), ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400083

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification for the imposition of a penalty where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid dec…

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ribunal while holding that penalty cannot be levied on only estimated additions; i. CIT vs. s. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) ii. ACIT vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP iii. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj. iv. Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) v. ACIT vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) The Tribunal held that by virtue of section 271(1)(c) that the ld. AO had been given discretion to levy penalty in case there was a concealment of income and also with regard to quantum of penalty. However, it was a basic need of the provision of law th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…al 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 livable. 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 in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…enaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. the fact that the Tribunal has sustained only 6% of the purchase value on estimation basis, we hold that the very basis of the penalty does not survive. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in cases of…

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…enaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. the fact that the Tribunal has sustained only 6% of the purchase value on estimation basis, we hold that the very basis of the penalty does not survive. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in cases of…

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…td. (ii) ITAT Delhi Bench in Pawan Kumar Glupta in ITA Nos.3504 & 3505/Del/2024 (iii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj.); (iv) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and (v) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 7. Thus, as noted above, 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 in the year under consideration. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in t…

SAMIR N SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 19(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4393/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarsamir N. Shah, A/35, Jeevan Villa Chs Narayan, Dabholkar Road, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aazps9084M V/S Income Tax Officer – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lower Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about the justification of the imposition of a penalty, where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate, is no longer res integra. We find that similar findings were rendered by th…

VENKATESHWARA RAO DALAPATHIRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 274

…ed appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs., Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and submitted that, estimation of income on cost of goods 5 ITA.No.988/Hyd./2025 sold per se would not attract penalty under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant reasons given by the Assessing Officer for levy o…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…bunal, therefore respectfully following the binding precedent of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I delete the penalty.” 12. We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above de…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…bunal, therefore respectfully following the binding precedent of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I delete the penalty.” 12. We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above de…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…bunal, therefore respectfully following the binding precedent of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I delete the penalty.” 12. We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above de…

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

…bunal, therefore respectfully following the binding precedent of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I delete the penalty.” 12. We also find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. Since the facts are similar, following the above de…

MUBARAK HUSSAIN FIRTA SHAIKH,SAKINAKA, MUMBAI vs. CIT, 41(1)(3), APPEAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmubarak Hussain Firta Shaikh, 23/B Abdul Rashid Compound, Nr. Ramlila Compound Khairani Road, Sakinaka, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Awgps3438J V/S Ito – 26(2)(3), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Awadhesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…en the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about, justification of imposition of penalty, where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate, is no longer res integra. 8. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions,…

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.” 8. We therefore respectfull…

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...
CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110) — Cited in 146 Judgments | BharatTax