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.

Bermaco Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2825/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, TTC Industries Area, of Income Tax MIDC, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No.AAACB4325J Assessee by .. Ms. Shraddha Gor, AR Revenue by .. Kumar Sanjay, Ld. CIT DR Date of hearing .. 05-10-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 10-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 Mumbai [in short CIT(A)]…

Sammaan Fabrics P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT 10-(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 6467/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…manufacturing activity in the undertaking belonging to it, the AO rejected the claim u/s 80IB of the Act and levied penalty on such rejection. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (327 ITR 510). Before us, the Ld D.R strongly supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 4. Before the Tribunal, the Ld A.R has furnished a written submission, where in it was contended that the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB merely on disagreeing with the view of the assessee would not lead to penalty u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. We notice that the ld CIT(A)…

Echjay Forgings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 215/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S.Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of Income 603/604, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Central Circle-45, 213, Backbay Reclamation, Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan: Aaace1902A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Virag M.Shah. (AR)For Respondent: Shri V.Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s.Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income 603/604, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Central Circle-45, 213, Backbay Reclamation, Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN: AAACE1902A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Virag M.Shah. (AR) Revenue by : Shri V.Justin (DR) Date of hearing : 01.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This ap…

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4391/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…by the revenue, especially when the relevant details were before the Assessing Officer and duly disclosed in the return of income. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of reported in 327 ITR 510(Del) and submitted that where the assessee had made a claim which was not only incorrect in law but was also wholly without any basis and further where the explanation furnished by the assessee for making such a claim was not bona fide, it would be difficult to say that the assessee would not be liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…additions reported in K.P.Madhusudhanan vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/ [2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010]233 CTR 465; MAK Data P.Ltd. vs CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del)/ 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mct India Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6071/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…nces of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in not upholding the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by ignoring ratio dicidendi as upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi). 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for sh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 10. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 11. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT 2001 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)].” He further submitted that penalty has rightly been levied by the Assessing Officer, because interest on income tax refund can never be treated or can be held as income from business activities or profits derived fr…

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 790/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar Matta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…(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…

M/S Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, is allowed

ITA 142/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Rekha Vimal, Sr. D. R

Section 271(1)(c)

…1 I. T. Appeal No. 142/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2011–12. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES: “E” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I. T. Appeal No. 142/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2011–12. M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner F – 14, Competent House, Vs. of Income Tax, Connaught Place, Circle : 3 (1), N e w D e l h I – 110 001. N e w D e l h i. PAN : AAACC 4842 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, C. A.; Department by : Ms. Rekha Vimal, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Da…

Aasia Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7541/MUM/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7541/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Asia Exports बिधम/ Acit 11(1) Hinduja House, 171, Dr Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd Vs. A.B. Rd, Worli Mumbai Pin:400018 Mumbai Pin:400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa6680N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. J.P. Bairagra (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.10.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1998-99 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Mr. J.P. Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

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

…r finding has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 5. High Courts and Tribunal in the cases title as T. Ashok Paif Vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) SC, Chempure Vs. ITO (40 SOT 164), CIT Vs. Shivlal Desai & Sons 114 ITR 377, CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 2010, 327 ITR 510/191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) Brij Mohan Vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 & CIT v/s Reliance Petro products(P)Ltd (2010) 322ITR. In view of the said law no ITA. No. 7541/M/2012 A.Y. 1998-99 penalty is levied because it cannot be said that there is a concealment of income furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. The other disallowance is in connection w…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1800/Mum/2013 AY: 2004-05 DCIT Vs. M/s Somaiya Properties IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) DCIT-2(1), Room No. 561, M/s. Somaiya Properties & 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Investment Pvt. Ltd. M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 बिधम/ (formerly known as M/s Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd.) Vs. Somaiya Bldg, 45-47, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAACT5004A (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/Revenue by…

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 100/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 HARISH NARINDER SALVE, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 37(1), 6E & 6F, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, ROOM NO. 2005, NEW DELHI – 11 0001 E-2, CIVIC CENTER, (PAN: AHFPS7386B) JL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002 (RESPONDENT) (ASSESSEE) Assessee by: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADV. Revenue by:SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi re…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6141/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 6141/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 D.C.I.T., Circle 9(1), vs. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi. S-323A, Panchsheel Park, (Appellant) New Delhi. PAN – AAACG0998E (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR Respondent by Sh.S.D. Kapila, Advocate & Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Date of Hearing 05.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi for th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another Vs CIT (2007) 291 ITR 122 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " CIT Vs Zoom Communications Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del.) " ACIT-CC-II(5) Vs Smt. J. Mythili (2014) 49 ITD 275 (Chennai) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “1. Your honour, as stated herein above during the course of the search there was no incriminating material or document fou…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Mehar Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6438/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Brawn Pharmaceuticals Ltd

The appeal is allowed but, in the circumstances, with

ITA/926/2015HC Delhi04 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)(iii)

…could be claimed and allowed is second sub-clause (i) and not the first sub-clause (i). 10. This position becomes even clearer when a reference is made to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). The facts in that case were more or less similar. There, the Assessee was not a power generation company and was engaged in the business of audio and video equipments. That Assessee, too, debited its P&L Account under the head „equipment written off‟. The question that arose was whether the above writing off of the amount with referen…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5865/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Oriental Bank of Commerce, vs. A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1), Central Accounts Officer, New Delhi. Plot No. 5, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon. (PAN: AAACO 0191M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA Respondent by : None(application rejected) Date of hearing : 07.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee, M/s.…

M/S. Gahoi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for

ITA 1213/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 68

…ked was whether the assessee had discharged the onus and satisfied the conditions mentioned in explanation 1. The Ld. CIT DR also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Private Limited reported in 327 ITR 510. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited versus CIT reported in 38 taxman.com 448 has laid down that the AO has to satisfy himself whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of assessment proceedings and that the AO i…

M/S. Gahoi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for

ITA 1212/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 68

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Core Carbons P Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1378/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1378/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Core Carbons Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 91, Krishna Colony, Corporate Circle – 2, Singanallur, 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 005. Coimbatore. Pan : Aabcc 2663 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…n deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013 and also judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510. 3. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is 100% Export Oriented Unit and the same was approved as such by the Joint Development Commissioner on 16.03.2005. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee was under the impression that it was eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Ac…