CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110High Court1996#691 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 366,470 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.

Trustar Diamond, Bandra East vs. Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the

ITA 1542/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

…r Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of other decisions by the Hon'ble High Court's and various benches of the tribunal which had held the said pr…

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamli

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1221/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…ns in exercise of deeming fiction. It is no more res integra that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on additions based on estimations. (Re: CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj.); CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj.); CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd, 303 ITR 53 (P&H). The addition in the case of assessee is based on report from DVO. There is no finding of fact by the AO that the assessee has concealed particulars of transaction of sale of land or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such transaction. In the facts of case, I am of considered view…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…eedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. S. P. Bhatt, (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj.), are in fact in favour of the ITA No.106/SRT/2025/AY.2009-10 Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya assessee whereby the penalty has been deleted. The revenue’s reference to the above decisions of the jurisdictional High Court is against its own plea. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Diwali Baug Athwalines

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…opatbhai Sakariya & Navinbhai Himatlal Shah made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. S. P. Bhatt, (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj.), are in fact in favour of the assessee whereby the penalty has been deleted. The revenue’s reference to the above decisions of the jurisdictional High Court is against its own plea. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upo…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…opatbhai Sakariya & Navinbhai Himatlal Shah made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. S. P. Bhatt, (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj.), are in fact in favour of the assessee whereby the penalty has been deleted. The revenue’s reference to the above decisions of the jurisdictional High Court is against its own plea. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upo…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…opatbhai Sakariya & Navinbhai Himatlal Shah made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. S. P. Bhatt, (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj.), are in fact in favour of the assessee whereby the penalty has been deleted. The revenue’s reference to the above decisions of the jurisdictional High Court is against its own plea. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upo…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…opatbhai Sakariya & Navinbhai Himatlal Shah made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue in cases of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) and CIT vs. S. P. Bhatt, (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj.), are in fact in favour of the assessee whereby the penalty has been deleted. The revenue’s reference to the above decisions of the jurisdictional High Court is against its own plea. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upo…

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ll settled that in Income-tax proceedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of (i) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), (ii) CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, 32 taxmann.com 192 (Guj.), (iii) Deepak Banwarial Agarwal vs. ITO, ITA No.827/SRT/2023 (Surat – Trib.) and (iv) M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1584/AHD/2012/SRT, dated 15.11.2018. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders o…

Virmabhai Ajabaji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 544/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250bSection 271(1)(c)

…r Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of other decisions by the Hon'ble High Court's and various benches of the tribunal which had held the said p…

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ceedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. To support such contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions, viz., (i) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), (ii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 3 ITA Nos.40 to 42-1308/SRT/2024/AYs.2011-12 to 2013-14 Vimal Chand Gokharoo & Ors (Rajasthan), (iii) DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1855/Ahd/2010/Srt, dated 15.11.2018, (iv) CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat), (v)…

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ceedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. To support such contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions, viz., (i) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), (ii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 3 ITA Nos.40 to 42-1308/SRT/2024/AYs.2011-12 to 2013-14 Vimal Chand Gokharoo & Ors (Rajasthan), (iii) DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1855/Ahd/2010/Srt, dated 15.11.2018, (iv) CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat), (v)…

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ceedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated addition. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is liable to be deleted. To support such contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions, viz., (i) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), (ii) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 3 ITA Nos.40 to 42-1308/SRT/2024/AYs.2011-12 to 2013-14 Vimal Chand Gokharoo & Ors (Rajasthan), (iii) DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1855/Ahd/2010/Srt, dated 15.11.2018, (iv) CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals, (2013) 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat), (v)…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…yre Retreading & Rubber industries 360 ITR 580, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Milla Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H), and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhash Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition.", the Mumbai ITAT thus held, thereby allowing both the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos.1062&1068/Srt/2024 ITO vs. Borda Brothers Asst. Year –2007-08 - 7– I have hence no hesitation in directing the AO to delete the penalty.” 12. On going through…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…yre Retreading & Rubber industries 360 ITR 580, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Milla Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H), and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhash Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition.", the Mumbai ITAT thus held, thereby allowing both the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos.1062&1068/Srt/2024 ITO vs. Borda Brothers Asst. Year –2007-08 - 7– I have hence no hesitation in directing the AO to delete the penalty.” 12. On going through…

Maruti Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year. 2013-14 Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. The DCIT, 802, Surmound, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad OPP. ISCON Temple, Vs S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat PAN No. AAACM7976L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R Date of hearing : 07-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 03-03-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee a…

Dey Trading Co., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…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(1)(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…

Naveen Kumar, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 4160/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal SethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…l 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 view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(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(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld…

Gupta Engineers and Contractor, Uttar Pradesh vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2850/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee and confirmed penalty order. The Ld. AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd. 322 ITR 216 (Del) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR submits that but for scrutiny assessment the income would have escaped tax net. 3 ITA Nos.2844 & 2850/DEL/2023 (AY 2014-15 & 2015-16) 5. Both sides heard,…

Gupta Engineers and Contractor, Uttar Pradesh vs. Additional Commission of Income Tax, Special Range Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2844/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee and confirmed penalty order. The Ld. AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd. 322 ITR 216 (Del) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR submits that but for scrutiny assessment the income would have escaped tax net. 3 ITA Nos.2844 & 2850/DEL/2023 (AY 2014-15 & 2015-16) 5. Both sides heard,…

M/S Blue Jet Healthcare Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1336/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of 4 M/s. Blue Jet Healthcare Limited concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(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(1){(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(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable.” 10. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal…