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.

Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandhbhorFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A

…f “………concealed the particular of his income and furnished inaccurate particular of income ........” (para 8 of the penalty order). 3 5. The CIT(A), relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Dehli-HC), confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted grounds. 7. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set- aside on the legal issue relating to the ambiguity in the mind of the Ass…

Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2132/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2132/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, I.T.O, 174-175, Sunrise Park, Vs. Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. Drive In Cinema, Ahmedabad. Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2132/AHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, I.T.O, 174-175, Sunrise Park, Vs. Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. Drive In Cinema, Ahmedabad. Drive-in-Road, Ahmedabad. PAN: ABMPK8782G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.J. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 24/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E…

M/S.Kapil Rayon (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5946/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negikapil Rayon (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito-4(2)(4) 6Th Floor 127/129, Room No.12-13 1St Floor, Old Hanuman Lane Aaykar Bhawan Kalbadevi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabck5687M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…e, which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assesee and also, by relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Court, in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited 327 ITR 510, confirmed penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that explanation furnished by the assessee for making such a claim is not found to be a bonafide. Further, Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to pay penalty, if explanation offered by the assesse is found to be false…

Dr Anita Mohan, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 4806/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald- Ld. DR

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

…scharge the onus by offering sustainable explanation regarding additions made by Ld. AO and did not act in a bona fide manner, confirmed the penalty by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT V/s Zoom Communications Private Ltd. (327 ITR 510) wherein it was held that if assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is wholly without any basis and the explanation offered by assessee was not found to be bona-fide, explanation-1 to Sec. 271 (1) (c) would come into play and the assessee would be liable for penalty. Aggrieved by aforesaid adjudication, the assessee is unde…

Minu Bakshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3118/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3118/Del/2017 (A.Y 2007-08) Minu Bakshi, Vs Acit, 4, Kautilya Marg, Central Circle-26, New Delhi. Room No.323, Ara Centre, E-2, (Aaepb 1799 F) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…otice issued u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This case relied by the Revenue is not applicable in the present case due to the distinguishing facts. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 4 327 ITR 510 will also not be applicable in the present case as the said case is not that of search case. There is separate provision for penalty in search cases given under the statute after 01.07.2012 that of Section 271AAB of the Act which was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. While dealing with this contention, the CIT(A) has taken the due date th…

Dsm Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathadsm Infocom Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2) Ground Floor Mumbai Shailesh Building Link Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 054 Pan/Gir No.Aaccd0460G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…sessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. The Ld.CIT(A), for the detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt.Ltd 327 ITR 510, held that explanation offered by the assesee to substantiate genuineness of purchases from certain parties was unsubstantiated. Moreover, the assessee could not establish that its explanation is bonafide. Hence, the conditions stipulated under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled and accordingly, there is no error in the f…

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

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

ITA 696/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.696/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Joint Director Of Income Tax बिधम/ M/S. Ubs Ag Level 3, 2 North Avenue (Osd), (It)-4(3)(1) Vs. Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Room No.1701, Air India Complex, Bandra (E), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5003G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kailash Kanojiya (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.696/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Joint Director of Income Tax बिधम/ M/s. UBS AG Level 3, 2 North Avenue (OSD), (IT)-4(3)(1) Vs. Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Room No.1701, Air India Complex, Bandra (E), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACU5003G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Kailash Kanojiya (Sr. DR) Assessee by: Shri Jeet Kamdar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Heari…

CIT-2, Bhopal vs. Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Raisen

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

ITA 858/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

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

…) and succeeded. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. AO and also placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd.(2010) 327 ITR 510(Delhi High Court) 2. Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) 9. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the assessee argued at length referring to the following written submissions: A.Disallowance of Excess Interest i.There was no concealment by assessee as the interest expenses were duly reflected in the profit and…

CIT-2, Bhopal vs. Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Raisen

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

ITA 857/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

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

M/S Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2324/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 275(1)(a)

…s of income, the contention raised by the assessee regarding notice issued did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) does not sustain. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials available on record. From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it can be seen that the notice did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) has been taken into account while passing penalty order. In fact, the Assessing Officer proceeded…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…-examination, 15 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad cannot vitiate the initiation and culmination of penalty proceedings in case of accommodation entry 3. GIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. M91 Taxman 179 (Delhi VF201 01 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010] 233 CTR 465] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to pena…

Shri Bhaveshbhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) & Agreed To The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Stcg For Rs. 41,39,180.00. Accordingly The Same Was Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR

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

…2.5 Similarly, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus MAK DATA LTD. reported in 31 taxmann.com 35 and CIT versus Zoom communication private Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510. 12.6 From the preceding discussion, we note that the explanation furnished by the assessee has not been found false by any of the authorities below. Thus it is inferred that, the assessee under the bona fides belief did not offer the income from the sale of agricultural land being exempted from tax. 12.7 The expression 'concealment of income' ha…

Sunil Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7704/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…ubstantiating the explanation about the earnings-source and mode involved et al, thereby proving the 3 ITA No. 7704/Del./2018 bonafide. The extant jurisprudence in this regard also helps viz- CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (DelhI)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465], Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] and MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR ]. The appellant has failed on the facts on these counts in view of the specific facts of this case. The AO has invoked section 271(1)(c) on additions, made…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. CIT, CC-8(2), 6th floor, Room M/s Dorf-Ketal Chemical (I) No. 658, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Drof Ketal Towers, Road, Mumbai-400020. D’Monte Lane, Oriem, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. PAN No. AAACD3819P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr.Rajesh Ojha, & Assessee by : Mr. Nilesh Patel, AR Date of Hearing : 23/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/10/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he case of Ashok Narayanan vs. DCIT which we have relied upon. 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017- Not relevant to the issue under consideration. TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication It deals with the Explanation 1 deeming concealment (P) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 510 of particulars of income whereas in the appellant's (Delhi) case the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. It is not relevant as the matter was set aside to the [2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC) Tribunal without giving any findings. 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food It deals with the levy of pena…

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

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

ITA 980/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 388/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 980/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 M/s Vignette India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of C/o Perfect Accounting and Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Shared Services Pvt. Ltd., E-20, New Delhi-110002 First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCV0946J Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2…

M/S Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 45

…ent but subsequently withdrew the same which clearly shows that the assessee had admitted the default and, therefore, in view of decision in the case Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244, CIT vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) and Mak Data P. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), the assessee has no escapement from the penalty. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no dispute that the assessee had credited the capital gain accrued on the sale of Dabur Pharma share to the capital reserve account and a note has bee…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

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

Bucon Engineers & Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2368/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Abirama Kartikeyan, D.R

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

…hat the acceptance of the addition and non filing of appeal will not exonerate the assessee from the penal provision as envisaged under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter following various decisions such as CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del – HC) & Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) held that the assessee has made incorrect claim for which it had offered no plausible explanation and thus explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and thus justified the addition. 6. After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record…

J Vittal Kumar, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 J. Vittal Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acepj 2097G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Smt. Neeju Gupta Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. RatnakarFor Respondent: Smt. Neeju Gupta

Section 139Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

…. • Hyderabad ITAT Vide ITA No. 1519/Hyd/2016 dated 28.11.2017 in case of Jyothirmoy Yamsani • Honble SC judgement in case of MAK Data Pvt Ltd [2013] 38 taxmann.com • Honble SC judgement in case of K.P.Madhusudhan Vs CIT 2511TR 99 • CIT Vs Zoom Communications 327 ITR 510” 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is noticed that assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2009-10 and it is filed only after serving of notice u/s 148. Since assessee should have filed the return of income as per section 153(1) but filed only after issue of notice u/s 148 after expiry of time…