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 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 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.

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Asha M. Gupta (Agarwal), Mumbai

ITA 103/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R.SinghFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/103/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-19(2) Smt. Asha M. Gupta(Agarwal) Room no.315, 3rd Floor, Piramal 9th Floor, Kanta Apartment Chambers,Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Sharadchand Chatterjee Marg Mumbai-400 012. S…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Stelmet Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6168/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6168/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) A.C.I.T. Circle – 12(3), M/S Stelmet Marketing, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 219, Maker Chamber, V, V. Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaefs8102K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Choksi

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6168/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) A.C.I.T. Circle – 12(3), M/s Stelmet Marketing, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 219, Maker Chamber, V, v. Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAEFS8102K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri A. Ramachandran Assessee by : Shri M.V. Choksi सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 25-2-2016…

Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 550/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites Vs. DCIT, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-6(1), FF-08, First Floor, New Delhi. JMD Regent Plaza, Near Guru Dronacharya Metro Station, MG Road, Gurgaon. PAN : AAFCM1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CA & Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 19.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

Khimasia Warehousing, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 6501/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6501/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Khimasia Warehousing Nightingale ACIT-20(1) Co-op. Society, Unit No.201, Bldg.No.2 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Hindustan Naka,Kandivali(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400 067. PAN:AAAFK 4025 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Sandeep Goel Assessee by:None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :07.03.2016 घो…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…under section 80IA/ 80IB of the Act on Electricity Duty and Entry Tax fraudulently despite the claim of the same as capital receipts. The ld Counsel further relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications P Ltd (Delhi) 327 ITR 510 , CIT Vs HCIL Kalindee (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 347 and other judgments, list of which is mentioned in written submission. 6.11 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the instant case a sum of Rs. 81.59 crores was shown as ‘Sales Tax Subsidy’ ‘Capital Reserve’ under the head reserves and surplus in schedule-2 of t…

National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4294/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta and Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

…Mills Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT – [2015] 43 CCH 0164 (Del- Trib). 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below and he also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P.Ltd. – [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi). 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused material placed before us. In the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no…

D.B. Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6339/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6339/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) D B Properties Private The Addl. Commissioner बनाम/ Limited, Of Income Tax, V. Db House, Yashodham, Range -9(1), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 063. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccd5197L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ajitkumar Srivastava

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ence to justify that interest expenditure of Rs.14,91,61,322/- has been incurred by the assessee company wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Ltd., 327 ITR 510 and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC). In nutshell, the CIT(A) held that the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming interest expense in its accounts and in the light of the judgments of various courts, the penalty is required to be levied…

Ami Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 803/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.SinghviFor Respondent: Dr. Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 371(1)

…The fact that the explanation of assessee is not accepted in quantum proceedings would not ipso facto visit the assessee with penalty in the absence of the claim being held to be not bonafide. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the assessee cannot be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide. In this case it is not the case of revenue that the claim made by the assessee was not on the basis of bona fide view.” 19 ITA No.803/Mum/14 M/s Ami Builders Pvt. Ltd. 14.…

ADIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Known As Linklater & Paines), Mumbai

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR

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

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7081/Mum/2005,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1996-97 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT-(IT)…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Madurai Micro Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2858/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t making a claim contrary to a statutory provision is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to concealment of income. 2.5 Having regard to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) LTD 327 ITR 510, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961’’. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Non Banking Financial Company registered under Companies Act and in the business of providing loans and lending business for various Self Help Groups i…

Ge Asset Management Incorporatede A/C. General Electric Pension Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6853/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6853/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ge Asset Management Ofice Of The Dy. Director Of बनाम/ Incorporated A/C. General Income-Tax(International Vs. Electric Pension Trust, Taxation), Range 3(1), C/O Pricewaterhouse R. No. 136, Scindia House, Coopers Pvt. Ltd., N.M. Road, Ballard Estate, Pwc House, Plot 18/A, Mumbai-400 038 Guru Nanak Road, Stational Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatg 3740P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.E. Dastur Shri Neeraj Sheth Ms Fereshte D. Sethna Shri Mrunal Parikh Shri Jasbir Chouhan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 245Q(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the Revenue authorities. The DR also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LG Asian Plus Ltd 11 Taxmann. Com 414, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd 328 ITR 0044. 8. We have heard the rival submissions on length. We have also carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the relevant documentary evidences referred to and brought to our notice by the Ld. Senior Counsel. 8.1. We have al…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Girdhardas K Damani L/R Anand G Damani, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1828/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Shah

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

…r concealment of income by assessee of Rs.3.77 Lacs which was levied as per Act?” 2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking congnizance of Hon. Delhi High Court case in of CIT V/S Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 327 ITR 510 (Delhi) which clarifies that, if assessee makes any 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 would be liable for penalty. 2. The common issue raised in a…

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2655/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2655/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. ACIT- Ward-5(3) Mukund M. Chitale & Co. CA Mumbai. 205,Agarwal,Shyamkamal“A”Building, Vs. Vile-Parle (E),Mumbai-400 057. PAN:AAICS 3712 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.M. Utture (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

Fusion India Project Management P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 379/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Fusion India Project Acit Company Circle-6(2), Mumbai. Management Pvt. Ltd. 43/49, 2Nd Cross, Promenade Road, Vs. Bangalore-560005 . Pan: Aabcf1864D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar BhandariFor Respondent: Shri G.M.Doss (DR)

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

…was assessed Rs. 2,18,98,066/- (2,90,90,334 – 71,92,268 = 2,18,98,066/-). 8. The AR of the assessee further relied upon the case titled as CIT vs. ECS Ltd. reported viz. (2010) 194 taxman 311/336 ITR 162 and CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. reported vide 327 ITR 510 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in both the matters has considered that: ‘so long as assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), even if claim made by him is 3 ITA No. 379/M/2014 M/s Fusion India…

ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Tejpal Singh Chadha, Mumbai

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

ITA 7403/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7403/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Bahedia

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7403/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Mr. Tejpal Singh 19(1)(4), Chadha, v. Room No. 308, Ekta heights, Piramal Chambers, 101, Opp. Khar Lalbaug, Gymkhana Mumbai 400 012. 16th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AADPC2529B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rakesh Ranjan Appellant by : Shri Hemant Bahedia सुनवाई क" त…

Asst CIT 14(2), Mumbai vs. Sunil Ganeriwal, Mumbai

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

ITA 7420/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 7420/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(2) Room No. 302, Third Floor Earnest House, Narirman Point अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai 400021 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Sunil Ganeriwal C/o. Vijay Rungta & Co. ""यथ"/Respondent 4/88, Nitanand Nagar No. 4, S.N. Marg Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN - AABPG1093J अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by:…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3028/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

…eration. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd 327 ITR 510 and on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd Vs CIT 358 ITR 593. It is the say of 5 ITA. Nos. 2960 & 3028/M/14 the Ld. DR that the conduct of the assessee is a deliberate ploy to reduce the taxable income. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authori…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2960/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

M/S. Machintorg (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5453/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54G

…e Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC) (viii). Chandra Pal Bagga v. ITAT (2003) 128 Taxman 632. (ix). Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (x). Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26 SC) (xi). CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.). 4. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that from the findings recorded by the learned AO, the appellant has furnished no cogent reply as why a penalty be not imposed. The appellant relied on the fact that since this was a bona fide belief that long term capital gain was exempt based upon advice of…