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 366,470 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.

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…s Harparshad & Co. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del), CIT vs New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Pr. CIT vs Control and Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Del), wherein the decision in CIT vs. Zoom Communication P Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) was distinguished and considered CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del) and 29 Wadhwa Constructions MAD Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). The assessee also gets shelter from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DCIT Nepa Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 137 (Del). So far as the case is relied upon by Ld. DR is concerned, we have pe…

Ashok M Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 601/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ASHOK M JAIN ACIT 22(3) बिधम/ SHOP NO. RAJKAMAL BLD, 3RD FLOOR, TOWER NO. 6 G. SEC 15 VASHI, VASHI RLY STN COMPLEX, Vs. NAVI MUMBAI-400703 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI 400703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAIPJ9350L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri V.D. Parmar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…account of hospitalization of the counsel was denied. In his Ex parte order he went on to uphold levy of penalty relying on Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v ESCORT FINANCE LTD (2010) 328 ITR 44 (DEL) and CIT v ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (DEL), on the premise that disallowance of bogus claim will attract penalty as department take very meager cases for scrutiny assessment and if such case would not have taken up for scrutiny assessee would have got away with the disallowable claim and even if caught in scrutiny assessee would get away by paying tax on the same which in any case i…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4061/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…account of hospitalization of the counsel was denied. In his Ex parte order he went on to uphold levy of penalty relying on Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v ESCORT FINANCE LTD (2010) 328 ITR 44 (DEL) and CIT v ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (DEL), on the premise that disallowance of bogus claim will attract penalty as department take very meager cases for scrutiny assessment and if such case would not have taken up for scrutiny assessee would have got away with the disallowable claim and even if caught in scrutiny assessee would get away by paying tax on the same which in any case i…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…account of hospitalization of the counsel was denied. In his Ex parte order he went on to uphold levy of penalty relying on Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v ESCORT FINANCE LTD (2010) 328 ITR 44 (DEL) and CIT v ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (DEL), on the premise that disallowance of bogus claim will attract penalty as department take very meager cases for scrutiny assessment and if such case would not have taken up for scrutiny assessee would have got away with the disallowable claim and even if caught in scrutiny assessee would get away by paying tax on the same which in any case i…

M/S. Orient Texfabs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result both the grounds of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3342/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. SK Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 154

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI. H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3342 &3343/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Orient Taxfabs Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, E-45/14, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-13(1), Vs. Phase-II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACI4248B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. SK Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 06/02/2017 Date of pronouncement 27/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. ITA No. 3342/Del/2014 AY. 2004-05 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moksha Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4188/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Moksha Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Circle-5(1), Room No. 409A, 308, 311, Vardhaman Plaza Vs. Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Derawala Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aaecm0877E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40a

…essee failed to explain as to why disallowance was not made in the return itself. 2.3 That the ration as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (328 ITR 44) and in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom communication Pvt. Ltd (327 ITR 510) is clearly applicable in this case.” 3. The assessee is a company filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring loss of Rs. 6651101/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and Page 2 of 3 during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts and on further verification the Assessing…

M/S Mindmill Software Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 242/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…made against the assessee has been confirmed, the factum of furnishing of inaccurate particulars stands proved; that penalty has been rightly imposed and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del.). 7. Undisputedly, additions made against the assessee during quantum proceedings have already been confirmed. It is settled principle of law that the penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that additions made in the income of the assessee has been confirmed rather to proceed with imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the AO has to…

Elias A Khatri, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

ITA 6936/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ ई” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं पवनिसंह "ाियक सद" Before Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Shri Pawan Singh,J.M. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.6936/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Elias A. Khatri ACIT-CC-9 6th Floor, CGO annexe 638, Gori HouseTPS, III, Vs. 8th Road,Khar (West),Mumbai-400 052. M.K. Road PAN: AAIPK 4049 D Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Mohan Exports India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/910/2016HC Delhi16 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14ASection 271Section 37Section 44A

…hat noting fully well the Explanation to Section 37 (1), the expenditure could not have been claimed, which was by deliberation and, therefore, warranted penalty in the circumstances. Learned counsel relies upon CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) as well as CIT v. N.G. Technologies 370 ITR 7. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)’s order which had primarily deleted the penalty by the following reasons: - “7.1 After going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue in dispute as well as the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (…

Kumar S. Taurani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5267/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Tralshawalla, ARFor Respondent: Mr.M.V. Rajguru, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Kumar S. Taurani Vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22 & 30 901 Vivendi, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 054 PAN : AAAPT7706J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Deepak Tralshawalla, AR Revenue by: Mr.M.V. Rajguru, DR Date of Hearing : 22/12/2016 Date of pronouncement: 16/01/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The…

Suvratanand S. Haridas, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-46, Mumbai

ITA 3337/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3337/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Suvratanand S. Haridas The Acit, Circle-26(1), Room No.602, B-205, Imperial Heights, Behind K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Oshiwara Depot, Best Colony Road, Charni Rd., Mumbai-400004. Vs. Moyilal Nagar, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400 104. Pan:Aavph 7631 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Sr.-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Shrey S. Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order, Dated 17/03/2015, Of The Cit (A)-46,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee & Individual,Filed His Return Of Income On 8/4/2011 Showing Income Of Rs.74.19 Lakhs .Besides The Said Salary Income It Had Shown Incomes Under The Head House Property (-Rs.9,378) & Other Sources(Rs.48,734/-).The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,Making Addition Of Rs. 1.92 Lakhs Under The Head Under-Reported Interest Income.He Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings For Concealing The Particulars Of Income Under Section 271(A)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Shrey S. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-Sr.-DR
Section 142Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “अई मुंबई अई अई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ अई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3337/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Suvratanand S. Haridas The ACIT, Circle-26(1), Room No.602, B-205, Imperial Heights, Behind K.G. Mittal ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Oshiwara Depot, Best Colony Road, Charni Rd., Mumbai-400004.…

Priti Tarun Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3892/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh.Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 54

…appeal and accepted the addition in the quantum assessment cannot be ground for slapping the penalty unless there is material on record to show that the said addition was on account of concealment. The facts of the decision of CIT Vs Zoom Communication P Ltd (327 ITR 510) cited by ld 4 Ms. Priti Tarun Shah CIT(A) in its order are at variance, in the said case the assessee made incorrect claim with the hope that it may get away from the detection if the return of income is subjected to section 143(1) of the Act. We have noticed that the assessee has sufficiently explained the facts in her reply to the notice u/…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…gment where penalty was deleted, this judgment rather supports Assessee's case as explained before the Ld. CIT(A) at pages 18-19 o f the paper book 7. In para 4, the Id. CIT-OR has relied on Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Zoom Communications P Ltd. 327 ITR 510. Facts o f this case are distinguishable from the facts o f Assessee's case. In this case, the Assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.l ,21,49,861/- reflected In the P&L A/c as debited under the head 'equipment written off and further claimed another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- reflected in the P&L A/c as debited under the head 'income- tax paid'. Both these…

Rashid D Lakdawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5757/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5757/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10) बनधम/ Rashid D Lakdawala, Income Tax Officer 20(2)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, C/O Citizen Timber Marg, Vs. Satellite 2, Opp Garden Gate, Piramal Chambers, Film City Road, Jijibhoy Lane, Goregaon East, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai--400063 Mumbai-400012 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aabpl6186F अपीऱार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 4.7.2015 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-31, Mumbai Sustaining The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Despite Service Of Notice Through Rpad None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Appointed Date Of Hearing , We, Therefore, Proceed To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte On Merit After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

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

…ate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the submissions which are incorporated at page 4 of the appellate order and relying on the various decisions such as Hon’ble Delhi High 3 Court in the case of Zoom Communications P Ltd 327 ITR 510 (Del), Bhairav lal Verma V/s Union of India (230 ITR 855), N D Shroff (Smaller HUF) V/s JCIT (82 TTJ (Mum) 626, and CIT V/s MAK Data (358 ITR 593) the observations and finding as under: “5.2 As is evident from the aforesaid clause (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, the words used in the statute are 'has concealed the particulars of his income or furnis…

Rameshkumar D.Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal filed by the appellant is treated is dismissed

ITA 1651/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Rameshkumar D. Rawal Ito 14(1)(2), Mumbai 11, 3Rd Floor, Ovalwadi, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Pan No.Aabpr3423R .. Appellant Respondent .. None Assessee By Revenue By .. B.S Bist, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 08-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 08-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Shri Rameshkumar D. Rawal ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai 11, 3rd Floor, Ovalwadi, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Pan No.AABPR3423R .. Appellant Respondent .. None Assessee by Revenue by .. B.S Bist, Sr. DR Date of hearing .. 08-11-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 08-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-25, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-25/IT-62/14(1)2/09-10 dated 28-12-11. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward 14(1)(2), Mumbai for the AY 2004-05 vid…

Chandrakant B. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4974/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri R K Sahu
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 54F

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायऩीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवुं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Shri Chandrakant B Shah, Asstt.Commissioner of Income 15/7, Navjivan Society Income tax 15(2), Vs. Lamington road, Mumbai. Mumbai-400008 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ PAN : AAKPS3958D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/: Assessee by…

Sunanda V Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5834/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5834/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Sunanda V. Agarwala, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Damini, Flat No. 301, 21(2)(4), V. 3 Rd Floor, C-10, 5 Th Floor, Juhu Tara Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Juhu, Bkc, Bandra (East), Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 049. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ablpa9852A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.)
Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…CIT(A) and also relied on the judicial decisions in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) , Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) and CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510(Del. HC) . 7. In the rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Virtuous Capital Limited v. ACIT in ITA No. 5647/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 vide orders dated 19th November, 2015 has considered all the case laws referred by the ld. D.R. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the mate…

The Ballabgarh Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Ballabgarh vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mathur, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A

…en selected for scrutiny assessment, the above facts would not have come to the notice of the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, penalty is rightly imposed in the matter. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 (Del.) 8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the assessee cooperative-society has come into existence by splitting-up of a parent society viz., Gurgaon-Rohtak Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., into two Societies and one of them is assessee-society. It is also not in dispute that there was brought forward los…

Amit R. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7548/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7548/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Shri Amit R Agarwal, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 221, Kewal Industrial Estate, Tax, 12(2), Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms Neelam Jadhav
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

…s case, the assessee had made genuine claim which was found to be wrong by applying deeming provisions of section 94(8) of the Act and thus the penalty was imposed by the AO and also sustained by the ld. CIT(A). In the case of Zoom Communications P Ltd (2010) 191 Taxmann 179, relied upon by the ld CIT(A), the Hon’ble by him are not bonafide for making such claim. In that case, the penalty would be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our opinion the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra). The facts of the case in Zoom Communicati…