How many judgments cite CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.?

330 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 510), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 250, Section 270A, Section 54F.

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 274 Section 250 Section 270A Section 54F Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

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

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

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Transtec Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5308/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5308/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ M/S. Transtec Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 70, Podar Chambers, 3Rd 2(3)(3), Room No. 555, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, S.A. Brelvi Marg, Road, New Marine Lines, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp2309N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.08.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee To The Extent Impugned In The Grounds Enumerated Below:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO has rightly levied the penalty in accordance with law but the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the same. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is liable to be set aside in view of the law settled in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 233 CTR 465 (Del). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has refuted the said contention and strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Before going further, we deemed it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record: - “7 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the AR. I hav…

DCIT, C-2, (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. M/S Hp State Reproductive & Child Health Care Society, Shimla

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the

ITA 1335/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Add.CITFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing as to how the judgment is applicable to the facts of the case. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (327 ITR 510) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the penalty levied on wrong claim of deduction of income tax payment & expenses claimed under the head 'equipment expenses written off.” 7. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the I.T.A.T., in the second round of quantum proceedings, had adjudicated th…

Mulay Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 78/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री अननऱ चतुर्वेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य, एर्वं श्री वर्वकास अर्वस्थी, न्यानयक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.78/PUN/2016 ननधाारण र्वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mulay Brothers Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Tapadia Terraces, Adalat Road, Aurangabad – 431001 PAN : AABCM7161J .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Agga…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solution (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7066/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, M/S Infinite Computer Circle-5(2)(1), Solutions (I) Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.571, 303, Lotus House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 33A, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaaci5145D C. O. No. 67/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7066/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Infinite Computer Dcit, Solutions (I) Ltd. Circle-5(2)(1), बनाम/ 303, Lotus House, R. No.571, Vs. 33A, New Marine Lines, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaci5145D

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, M/s Infinite Computer Circle-5(2)(1), Solutions (I) Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.571, 303, Lotus House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 33A, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACI5145D C. O. No. 67/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA NO.7066/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Infinite…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhanrajgir Business P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…expenses and reducing the tax. He submitted that the said action of the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, learned DR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (327 ITR 510). Learned DR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile (306 ITR 277) and contended that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty. 4. On the contrary, learned AR submitted that the assessee did not conceal any particulars of income or furnish any inaccurate particu…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)

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

…round that the claim for deduction in respect of income-tax was a "human bonafide clerical mistake" as the assessee was a firm not having expert chartered accountants on its payroll. In appeal before the High Court, the department relied on Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 and Escorts Finance 328 ITR 44 where it was held that as under no circumstances could an assessee have claimed provision for tax as a deduction, penalty was imposable. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal: “As regards depreciation, the property was let out for the first time in the latter part of the A Y. As such, the benefit of inadverte…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…on’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kanchenjunga Advertising Private Limited v. CIT in ITA no. 944/2011. The learned CIT DR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communications Private Limited reported in (2010) 327 ITR 510(Del). The learned CIT DR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sree Valliappa Textiles reported in (2007) 294 ITR 322(Kar.) to contend that penalty is leviable even for omission and commission on the part of its counsel on which the assessee relied upon as the assessee is bound by counsels omission an…

Ashok P. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4101/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Ashok P. Shah I.T.O.-18(1)(2) बिधम/ 701, La Marie Jai Bhawani 2Nd Floor Hall 2Nd Floor Hall Mata Road Off Cease Rd, Room No. 601, Earnest House, Vs. Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400 097 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Akmps5481P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kasale, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69Section 88

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.4101/Mum/2016 AY: 2009-10 Shri Ashok P. Shah Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Shri Ashok P. Shah I.T.O.-18(1)(2) बिधम/ 701, LA Marie Jai Bhawani 2nd Floor hall 2nd Floor hall Mata Road Off Cease Rd, Room No. 601, Earnest House, Vs. Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400 097 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AKMPS5481P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Ms. Namrata Kasale, A.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R सुनवाई की तायीख / :…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Microworld Software Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4834/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4834/Mum/2015, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri T. A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Bapat

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed by assessee was not bona fide or any material particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate. 1.3.4 In the case of ACIT vs.Jaya Chakravarty (2012) 33 CCH 108 DelTrib, the Hon'ble Tribunal relying on the decisions of CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510, & CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. - 322 ITR 158 (S (-,/ held that the assessee's claim was bona fide. Admittedly, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for eligibility of deduction u/s bA. Section 10A(1) provides deduction for ten consecutive years including the year in which the undertaking begins to produce computer software. T…

Sh. Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Before Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year 2010-11 Rakesh Gupta Vs. Ito, 74B, Pocket-A, Mayur Vihar, Ward-36(4) Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan-Aajpg6874B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/01/2017 Order Per C.M. Garg, J.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxvii, New Delhi Dated 29.9.2014 For Ay 2010-11 By Which Penalty Order Passed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The Act) Has Been Upheld. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows: I. No Incriminating Evidences Found At The Time Of Assessment To Impeach Or Discredit Genuineness Against The Sources Of Funds Submitted In Our Replies To The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Assessment, We Have Surrendered Voluntarily To Purchase Peace Of Mind & Avoid Mental Pressure & Harassment & On The Condition That Non-Levy Of Penalty. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2010-11 Rakesh Gupta Vs. ITO, 74B, Pocket-A, Mayur Vihar, Ward-36(4) Phase-II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AAJPG6874B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 11/12/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 02/01/2017 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, J.M. This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New D…

Asst CIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solutions (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…1 ITA 1109/Mum/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.1109/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2010-11) ACIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai vs M/s Infinite Computer Solutions (I) Ltd Plot No.155, Somdutt Chamberws-II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi 110 066 PAN : AAACI5145D APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Saurabh Raj Respondent by Shri Thomas Kutty M.V. Date of hearing 28-12-2017 Date of pronouncement 29-12-2017 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against t…

Sri Sachinadra Nath Kayal, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Ito Warrd-23(1), बनाम Vill. Makhla-2, P.O. & Aayakar Bhawan, / V/S. P.S. Uttarpara, Khadinamore, Dist.Hooghly Pin 712247 Chinsurah, Hooghly [Pan No.Afepk 7726 E] Pin-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.P. Datta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.07.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.04.2013. Shri S.P. Datta, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Saurbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue.

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

…Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while holding that penalty has to be imposed where the appellant is not able to show that the mistake/omission is bonafide, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.[2010] 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 2233 CTR 465 (Delhi)as follows: ‘The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income-tax Returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be…

Abr Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6236/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjeeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such- a claim is. not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271 (1 )(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to…

Capricon Realty Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5724/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal/For Respondent: Shri H.N Singh,CIT-DR

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

…ty u/s 271(1)(c) is to be taken in context of reference to the return of income filed with the Revenue. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited 327 ITR 510 ( Del. HC) and also decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. N G Technologies Limited 57 Taxmann.com 389(Del HC) which was later confirmed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in (2016) 70 taxmann.com 37(SC) wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Thus, the prayer was made by learned CIT-DR to uphold penalty levied by the AO…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ajay Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 995/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…of any money over and above what is stated in the sale deed. The assessee disclosed all the relevant facts before A.O. Therefore, penalty was cancelled. 4. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications 327 ITR 510 and 4 ITA.No.995/Del./2016 Shri Ajay Sharma New Delhi. submitted that even by applying deeming provisions under section 50C of the I.t. Act, penalty is leviable. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court…

P. James, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Gitanjali Ghate vs DCIT ITA No.6560/Mum/2010. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Ltd 327 ITR 510 (Del) confirmed penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c). Relevant portion of the order of CIT(A) is extracted below:- 2.9 I have considered the above contention of the assessee. However, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the assessee has not furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before me any material to show the basis…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6519/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv

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

…such cases mens rea was not essential. It was submitted that on facts, the penalty had been rightly imposed. Reliance was also placed by the Ld. Sr. DR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communications Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510(Del) for the proposition that a claim wholly untenable in law and lacking bona fide will attract penalty. 4. In response, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the penalty was imposed only on a difference of opinion as to whether a particular item of income was taxable under ‘short- term capital gains’ or under ‘business income’. T…