CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

327 ITR 510High Court2010#231 most cited

What is CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

330

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. · 327 ITR 510 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · section 270A penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · unsubstantiated claim · bona fide explanation · levy of penalty · incorrect in law claim · explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 250Section 270ASection 54FSection 139(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 143

Judgments citing CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

M/S. Fortune Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Central -II, Bhopal

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 83/IND/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…58/-- & Rs.32,35,858/-respectively are hereby, cancelled . It is the said order which was not interfered with by the Tribunal in further appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon an order passed by the Delhi High Court reported as (2010) 327 ITR 510 [Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Limited], to contend that if the issue is not debatable then the assessee is liable for penalty. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and find that no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. In the present case, the Assessing Officer found that the assesse…

M/S. Fortune Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Central -II, Bhopal

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 82/IND/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…58/-- & Rs.32,35,858/-respectively are hereby, cancelled . It is the said order which was not interfered with by the Tribunal in further appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon an order passed by the Delhi High Court reported as (2010) 327 ITR 510 [Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Limited], to contend that if the issue is not debatable then the assessee is liable for penalty. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and find that no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. In the present case, the Assessing Officer found that the assesse…

Ajay Loknath Lohia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2998/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…parties as genuine. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communications Pvt Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510 (Del) held that the assessee has failed to offer any explanations in respect of addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases from hawala operators. Therefore, he opined that the AO was right in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant observations are as under:- “5.9 The ^O complete…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITO Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt.Ltd. Ward-23(4), A-6, Room No. 246, Connaught Place C.R. Building New Delhi Vs. New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AABCS0182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Jain, CA Date of Hearing 09/07/2018 Date of 01/10/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(OSD)(Appeals)-8, Delhi dated 27.2.2015 f…

ACIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. Grace Shelter, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit- 26(1) Grace Shelter 64, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 701, C-11, 7Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. S V Road, Opp. Milan Subway, Mumbai-400051. Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Pan: Aaefg4946M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : R. Kavitha (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Amrit Porwal (Ar)

For Appellant: R. Kavitha (DR)For Respondent: Shri Amrit Porwal (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…is also not bona fide" 2 ITA No. 2832/Mum/2017-Grace Shelter 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VS. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. (327 ITR 510) (Del) not appreciating that the ratio laid down by the said judgment actually endorses the stand taken by the department" 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) wherein it was catego…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he other hand while supporting the order of ld. CIT(A) relied on the following decisions :- (i) Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 295 ITR 244. (ii) R. L. Traders vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT. (iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., 327 ITR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328…

Swadesh Textiles P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. ITO-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1st floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, JSS Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. PAN No. AAGCS2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Justin, DR Date of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date of pronouncement: 17/08/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the…

Anisha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decision:- 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (…

Anuradha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decision:- 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (…

Asst CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Lubricants India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 898/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom communications Pvt. Ltd.(327 ITR 510)(Del). 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored, 3. In this case, the penalty has been levied for the two additions which are as under: 1. disallowance of EDP expenses of Rs.8,42,189/-; and 2. advertisement expenditure of Rs.10,31,614/-. The penalty levied on EDP exp…

Asst CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Lubricants India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 896/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom communications Pvt. Ltd.(327 ITR 510)(Del). 3. In this case, the penalty has been levied for the two additions in this case which are as under: 1. provision for a sum of Rs.1,19,00,000/- being the provision for schemes; 2. provision for a sum of Rs.57,50,000/- being the provision for employees cost. The penalty levied in this case has been deleted by the ld. Commissioner of Inco…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5747/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No.5553/Mum/2014 M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-2(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai- 400020 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ita No.5167/Mum/2015 Dcit-2(1)(1), M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400 001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…erefore, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. D.R to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). Per Contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee objected to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention took us through the „SCN‟ issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w.s. 271…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6129/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No.5553/Mum/2014 M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-2(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai- 400020 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ita No.5167/Mum/2015 Dcit-2(1)(1), M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400 001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…erefore, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. D.R to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). Per Contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee objected to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention took us through the „SCN‟ issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w.s. 271…

Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5553/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No.5553/Mum/2014 M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-2(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai- 400020 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ita No.5167/Mum/2015 Dcit-2(1)(1), M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400 001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…erefore, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. D.R to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). Per Contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee objected to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention took us through the „SCN‟ issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w.s. 271…

Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 6680/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No.5553/Mum/2014 M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-2(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai- 400020 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ita No.5167/Mum/2015 Dcit-2(1)(1), M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400 001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…erefore, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. D.R to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). Per Contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee objected to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention took us through the „SCN‟ issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w.s. 271…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…relied upon the Penalty Order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR also relied upon the following decisions: i. UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244 (SC) ii. R L Traders vs. ITO 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT iii CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (SC) v. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) vi. MAK Data P. Ltd. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) vii. B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC) viii. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) 9 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant mat…

Ashwani Jaipaty, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is

ITA 276/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.276/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Shri Ashwani Jaipaty, Ghaziabad. PAN ACLPJ9373L vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 C/o. Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No.206- Ghaziabad. 207, Ansal Satyam, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Akhilesh Kumar & Shri S.C. Gupta, Advocates. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)…

Hilton International Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7701/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S.P. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kr. Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…pellant adopted one of the views based on favorable judicial precedents. 5 ITA No. 7701/Del/2017. Hilton International LLC. 6. The Ld. DR has relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and argued based on the Judgment in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and Mac Data Pvt. Ltd. 38 taxmann.com 448 (2013), that it is a fit case for levy of penalty. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. The Revenue has not levied penalty, on the similar issue in the subsequent years and in fact dropped the penalty proceedings initiated in the year 2015-16 and also kee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Invecon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3051/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT, Circle 12(2) M/s Invecon Pvt.Ltd. Room No.247 vs. 56, Darya Ganj C.R. building New Delhi 110 002 I.P. Estate New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AABC10423R (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. D.R Assessee by None present. Date of Hearing 25/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 02/07/2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the Department against the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the Ld. C…

Eon Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3011/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…leads to concealment of particulars of income. The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications India Ltd 327 ITR 510 (Del) held that the assessee has deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w. Explanation 1 thereof and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.79,05,625 which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The relevant portion of the order of the AO is extracted below:- “5. Explanation…