How many judgments cite CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.?

146 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 148, Section 250.

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 147 Section 143(3)Section 274 Section 148 Section 250 Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)deletion of penalty section 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income section 271(1)levy of penalty section 274 section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

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

…eld 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 4 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 Hon’ble 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. 7. Thus, in view of the facts of the…

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1130/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1130/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-05 Asian Granito India Ltd., D.C.I.T.(Osd), 202, Dev Arc, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Iskon Temple, Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aafca2340H

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 6.1 The assessee before the learned CIT-A submitted that it is the settled position of law by the order of Hon’ble jurisdictional High court of Gujarat in case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. reported in 221 ITR 110 that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the addition made on account of estimation of profit. 6.2 The assessee further submitted that to levy penalty on account of concealment of income there should be deliberate act of concealment which has to be established based on cogent materials. But the Revenue has not alleged…

Shyam Sunder Kansal, U.P vs. Ward 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

…me is determined on estimate basis. Penalty being a quasi-criminal proceeding there is a duty cast on the AO to establish the guilt of the assessee in concealing the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. 2. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.): Where income is assessed on estimate basis after rejecting book results, penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be imposed by mere application of explanation thereof in the absence of any evidence to conclude a positive finding that there was concealment of income. 3. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H): Provisions of section 271(1)(c) are n…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Limited, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 40aSection 80I

…n disallowed due to difference of opinion on what constitutes business purpose and that too on estimation basis. The ld.CIT(A) by following the decisions of various Hon'ble Courts i.e. decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra), Subash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110( Guj), Surat Fashion Ltd. ITA No. 3368/Ahd/2008 dated 27/05/2011, Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in ITA No. 0852/Ahd/2015 dated 04/04/2018, Deshman Pharmaceuticals in ITA No. 138 & 189/Ahd/2017 dated 07/09/2018 had deleted the addition. Before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR made out a case that there can be no such disallowance for the reason that expen…

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2535/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 32(1), Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Plot No.96/100 Audumber Bungalow, Charkop Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. Pan: Aaapp-7172-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani : None Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/07/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. As Per Defect Memo Raised By The Registry, This Appeal Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Ld.Departmental Representative Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 30/07/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 31/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

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. 6. In the facts of the case and in the light o…

DCIT Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1989/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1989/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 1988/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-1,Thane, Room No.22, B- Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Thane (W) – 400 604. बनाम/ Vs. M/S. J.J.Enterprises, Shop No.12, Basement, Tip Top Plaza, Lbs Marg, Thane (W) -400 602. Pan.Aagfj-5549-K : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 143(3)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 deleted. 6. In the facts of the case and in the light of aforementioned…

DCIT, Cir-1, Thane vs. M/S. J.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1988/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rameshwar MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 143(3)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 deleted. 6. In the facts of the case and in the light of aforementioned…

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…on estimations. It is an accepted legal position that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied where additions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & 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)]. 5. We further find that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 18.03.2015 and the subsequent notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2019 falls short of the legal requirement to be a valid notice for levy of penalty. The first notic…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ed only estimated addition and reliance is placed on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACTT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACTT Vs. Gan Pat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. Addition sustained of 5,90,320/- out of Rs. 32,38,590/- (5) The second addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) on account of this addition by mentioning follo…

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 780/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 780/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-32(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Abhay Automotive Room No.703, 7Th Floor, Company Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra B/402, Sumer Nagar Building Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), No.3, Sv Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa3745K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Katmutia (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Grounds Of Appeal, On The & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Of Rs. 1,81,613/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has

For Appellant: Shri Kartik Katmutia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ncome has been estimated. In this regard, we find support of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H), CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Del) & CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) is quite justifiable which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, app…

Asst CIT 32 (2), Mumbai vs. Mangalsingh M Rathore, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.07/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit-32(2) Mangal Singh M. Rathore 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya B-1, Neela Apt, Svp Road, Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Borivali (W), Mumbai- Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), 400092. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipr6967M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…o be sustainable where the profit was estimated on the estimation basis. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H), CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Del) & CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, we upheld the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 5 A.Y…

ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ghanshyam T Gursahani, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 338/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigop U Singh vs. C1T 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 the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the penalty levied. The appellants succeeds on his grounds of appeal filed.” 3. A…

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

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

…Kalicharan Agarwalla & Co. [(1984) 146 ITR 634 (Cal.)]; 5. CIT Vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (Punj); 6. CIT Vs. Devandas Perumal & Co. [(1983) 140 ITR 943 (Bom.)]; 7. CIT, Poona vs. B.D. Ramchandra (Bom.)150 ITR 242; 8. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (HC) (Bom.); 9. CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [2010] 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); & 10.CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P & H). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons as to why penalty is leviable under the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the AO has giv…

ITO 13 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reinfibre Products India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6274/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6274/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–13(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Reinfibre Products India P. Ltd. 410, Everest Apartments ……………. Respondent PPN Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400 061 PAN – AACCR0813R Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh Assessee by : None Date of Hearing – 10.05.2021 Date of Order – 10.06.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order…

Income Tax Officer 13(2) (3), Mumbai vs. Swar Creative Art Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5992/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं. 5992/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-13(2)(4), R. No. 146B, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti SinghFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…y being quasi criminal proceedings, duty is cast upon the AO to establish guilt of the assessee in concealing the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co. reported as 221 ITR 110 has held that where the AO after rejecting accounts of the asessee has assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in…

M/S Sher Mohammed & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward-26(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5986/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) M/S. Sher Mohammed & Co., Flat No. 23, 6A, Taxi Men Colony, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070. Pan: Aasfs7479M ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit- Ward (26(3), C-11, 5Th Floor, R.No. 501, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... .ितवाद0/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…being quasi criminal proceedings, duty is cast upon the AO to establish guilt of the assessee in concealing the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co. reported as 221 ITR 110 has held that where the AO after rejecting accounts of the asessee has assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in…

ITO-28(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas, Mumbai

ITA 4934/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं.4934/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-28(2)(1), R. No. 326, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ...... अपीलाथ. /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas Shop No.22, Mahavir Bhakti, Plot No. 93, Sector-15, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan: Adbpt4067A ..... /ितवाद1/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod BhaskaranFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 271(1)(c)

…ty being quasi criminal proceedings, duty is cast upon the AO to establish guilt of the assessee in concealing the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co. reported as 221 ITR 110 has held that where the AO after rejecting accounts of the asessee has assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, आअसं. 4934/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Ho…

ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Astee Lifescience Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5682/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ers Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1097/2009 dated 25/01/2010; on the decision of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaykumar Jain dated 19/04/2010; decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., reported in 221 ITR 110; decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harigopal Singh reported in 255 ITR 85; and the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla in ITA No.174/2010, the ld. CIT(A) held that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on an estimated addition and accordingly, d…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…njamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 ITR 121 > CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin& Party (1999) 240 ITR 778 (Raj) > CIT vs. B.D. Ramchandra (1984) 150 ITR 242 (Bom) > CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt, Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) 9.8 As regards disallowance of donation is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the appellant that the omission was inadvertent. In case it was delibera…

ITO - 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5708/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5708/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5709/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-13(3)(3) M/S Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ R.No.227, 2 Nd Floor Unit No.7, New Tejpal Estate Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-9909-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 27/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 & 2011-12 Contest Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Qua Deletion Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). In The Said Orders, Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted Penalty Of Rs.1 Lac & Rs.0.87 Lac For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ditions were made on estimated basis. For the said proposition, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the binding decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT 258 ITR 85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 besides host of various Tribunal decisions which are already enumerated in the impugned order. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. ITA Nos.5708-5709/Mum/2018 M/s Viva Composite Panel Private Limited Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 4. Upon careful consideration, we find that the impugned…