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.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati & Chandrapur Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…om A.Y 2010-11, which are regularly disallowed by the AO and the same being upheld by the Ld. CIT(A)? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case the CIT(A) erred in not following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.(327 ITR 510), relied upon by AO wherein decision of Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. Was considered? Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank 4) Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 4. In this case, the assessee is a District Central Co–operative Bank and is engaged in banking activity and has the license for carrying on the bus…

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Chandrapur Distt. Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…om A.Y 2010-11, which are regularly disallowed by the AO and the same being upheld by the Ld. CIT(A)? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case the CIT(A) erred in not following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.(327 ITR 510), relied upon by AO wherein decision of Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. Was considered? Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank 4) Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 4. In this case, the assessee is a District Central Co–operative Bank and is engaged in banking activity and has the license for carrying on the bus…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…om A.Y 2010-11, which are regularly disallowed by the AO and the same being upheld by the Ld. CIT(A)? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case the CIT(A) erred in not following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.(327 ITR 510), relied upon by AO wherein decision of Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. Was considered? Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank 4) Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 4. In this case, the assessee is a District Central Co–operative Bank and is engaged in banking activity and has the license for carrying on the bus…

Johnson Mattey India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1247/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, C/O Luthra & Luthra, Range-5, Law Offices India, New Delhi. 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Circle-13(1), C/O Luthra & Luthra, New Delhi. Law Offices India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate & Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 03.03.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44

For Appellant: Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…assistance of high order. The appellant is subjected to tax audit. The AR could not explain as to how such a mistake could have occurred in this case. 12.2 It is pertinent to refer to the case of Zoom Communication, delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (327 ITR 510) wherein the Court has held that if the assessee makes a claim which is incorrect in law, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. It reasoned as under: "20. The court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income-tax returns, are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee…

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…was deleted by the Apex court. Even otherwise, during the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), which, he pointed out, though was relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the present case while levying penalty, it actually supported the assessee’s case. He drew our attention to the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in the said case holding that as long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information g…

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 43/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…essment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.), held as under:– “6. After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) and rendered herself liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the year under…

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 42/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…essment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.), held as under:– “6. After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) and rendered herself liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the year under…

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 41/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…essment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.), held as under:– “6. After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) and rendered herself liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the year under…

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 40/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…essment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.), held as under:– “6. After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) and rendered herself liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the year under…

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 805/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M.s, Neelkanth Gum and Chemicals cuke The ACIT Vs. Near Railway Station Circle-Jhunjhunu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331403 (Raj) Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFN 6786C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri G.S. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@R…

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…on attempt and falls under the term ‘furnishing of wrong particulars of income’ and, therefore, the authorities are justified in Page 3 of 7 levying and sustaining the penalty. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited, 327 ITR 510. 7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the first objection of the assessee based on law of limitation is concerned, section 275 of the Act is clear in its purport that no order imposing penalty under chapter XXI after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course…

ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda, Mumbai

ITA 446/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 06th July 2015 in the case of CIT vs. Mis Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd, after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication P Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510, has held.. "Section 271(1)(c) of the Act lays down that the penalty can be imposed if the authority is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (supra) applied the test of strict interpretation. It held that the plain language of…

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…h regard to the claim of the assessee that it was mala fide there is no error in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Further, reliance of the revenue on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 510/191 Taxman 179 is of no help to them as therein the High Court was considering the question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein it had concluded to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with mala fide intention which is not the case herein.” 9. The co-ordinate bench of Mumbai in the case of Tanushr…

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid cuke The ITO Vs. B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Ward 5(2) Jaipur Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Asse…

Soft Point Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Known As Color Chips Animation Park Limited), Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/HYD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 88/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/s. Soft Point Income Tax Officer, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(3), (Earlier known as M/s. Color Hyderabad Chips Animation Park Ltd.), Hyderabad [PAN No. AABCC4664J] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue by: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR सुनवाई ई की…

Machinfabrik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…by the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del). 8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is evident from the written submission made by the assessee that the assessee firm had made purchases from M/s. Arihant Steel, amounting to Rs.11,85,715/- which company was alleged to be a hawala dealer as per the information from the Sales Tax Department. Du…

Sudhir Bhupendra Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT (161 Taxman 218 SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the penalty levied by Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). The Ld. CIT(A) also held that assessee cannot take plea that he was unaware of tax law as a simple query from anyone or on internet would have revealed that he is liable to pay tax on gain on sale of immovable property. The ignorance of law is an untenable plea. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…nd it was not a case of suo-moto explanation, Assessing Officer liable to invoke penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. reported in 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465 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 penalty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…nd it was not a case of suo-moto explanation, Assessing Officer liable to invoke penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. reported in 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465 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 penalty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the…

Vinod Ratan Patil, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…105, wherein it was held that if the claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment of particulars and penalty would be justified. d) CIT VS Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxmann 179 (delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465 wherein it was 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 claim is not found to be bonafide, 6 ITA.NO.4246/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) Vinod Ratan Patil Explanation 1 to Sec 271(1)(c) would come into play and…