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.

Cana Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3397/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Cana Glass Ltd. Vs. Ito Ward 9(1)(2) Predpl, 52, Natasha House Aayakar Bhavan, Hill Road, Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc5587D Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…ontinued the question of allowances of expenses and depreciation does not arises. Thereafter the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) and after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble [2010] (327 ITR 510) levied penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- which works out to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but could not succeed. The CIT(A), for the detailed reasons recorded in this appellate order confirmed penalty levied by the AO in respect of wrong claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,07,153/- h…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

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

…otice dated 10.03.2014 but no reply was filed by the appellant Penalty was ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. levied by the AO relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Ltd. 327 ITR 510. The AO held that the appellant had evaded tax by filing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealing its income of RS.1,70,28,321/- and levied a penalty of Rs.57,87,930/-. 4.3. It is evident that penalty is levied on addition resulting out of rejection of method of valuation of closing stock. The appellant had been consistently following wei…

Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 722/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.722/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Naresh T. Wadhwani, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Canara Bank, Pimpri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabpw7203Q Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ome and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. 6. The CIT(A) has restricted said penalty to addition of ₹ 1,19,581/- in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication reported in 327 ITR 510 (Del). 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that there is no merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty as mistake had occurred in applying the correct indexed rate. There is merit in the plea of assessee especially where the levy of penalty was restricted to ad…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…ITA No. -5716/Del/2015. Gaurav Garg. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 5716/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gaurav Garg, Commissioner of Income Tax 152, New Gandhi Nagar, Vs. (Appeals), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. PAN No: AGEPG5300K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], Ghaziab…

Ameet Vipin Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO - 24 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5026/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…particulars of income. 4. The Ld CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon various judicial precedence including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 510(Delhi) 4 Shri Ameet Vipin Desai held that the assessee has deliberately claimed speculation loss in the profit loss account without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such claim is not bona-fide, therefore, explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act would be attracted and hence there is no reason to interfere with the f…

Garron Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshgarron Trading Company Pvt. Ito -8(1)(4) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., B-202, New Usha Nagar, Vs. Village Road, Bhandup (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg8957B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.V. Thombre (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Thombre (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f Interest Income. The assessee offered only when it was detected by the Assessing Officer during the assessment. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (327 ITR 510), Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (358 ITR 593 SC) 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute that while filing the return of income, the assessee has offered Interest Income of Rs. 1,35,986/-. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that…

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Puneet Saluja, C/o Vipin Jain & vs. Income-tax Officer, Associates, CAs, Flat No. 915, 9th Ward 30(4), New Delhi. Floor, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN- AIGPS2924P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2019 ORDER Per B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.: The appeal was filed 13.06.2016 and notice has been issued to the assessee by…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2834/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…plicable to this case; that when assessee has made a wrong claim of deduction it tantamounts to concealment and relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. 91 ITR 467, CIT vs. India Seafood 105 ITR 708 & M/s. New Holland Tractor (India) (2014) 49 taxmann.com 573 (Delhi). 8. Undisputedly, the assessee has brought on record full and true facts while claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. It is also not in dispute that Hon’ble High Court upheld the disallowance…

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2833/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2832/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

The Mantola Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2830/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil,Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate and Ms. Aayushi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT-DR

…he order of the Assessing Officer and did not file any appeal. This clearly proves that the claim of the assessee was not bona fide and on these facts, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P.Ltd. – [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi) would be squarely applicable. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We will first deal with the assessee’s contention that the levy of penalty is illegal because in the penalty notices, no specific charge was levied. We find that the first show cause notice issued to th…

Sh. Tarun Arora, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., MsFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…w of above, impugned penalty order passed by the High Court deserved to be confirmed.” 11 I.T.A. No.1154/DEL/2019 11. She has further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) and also the decision in the case of Jivanlal and Sons vs. ACIT reported in (2019) 103 taxmann.com 208 (SC) given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP of the assessee wherein the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the penalty on the assessee’s explanation that it has claimed deduction in respect of tax paid on the basis of wrong ad…

Harisons Diamonds P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7388/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Harisons Diamonds P. Ltd. Dcit 2606/4, Shop No. 101, 1St Vs Circle-11(1) Floor, Soliator Plaza, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan: Aacch1163N (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…by the assessee, the 3 A.O levied penalty of Rs. 82,000/- being 100 % of tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. While doing so, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510 Del. 5. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the business was carried on by Mr. Ashwani Singla (Proprietor) under the name and style of M/s Harisons Diamonds, which was taken over by the assessee company, M/s Harisons Diamonds Private Limited on 1/11/2009. Upon such take over, the proprietor Mr. Ashwani Singla became the director of the asse…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1538/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Transwind Communication & Vs. The DCIT(OSD), Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, 92, New York Tower-A, Ahmedabad. S. G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 059. [PAN No. AABCT 3026 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.R. Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 19.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant ap…

Sony Dadc Manufacturing (India ) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

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

…ed was not mentioned. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 2. RL Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (191 taxman 179 (Delhi)/(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/(2010) 233 CTR 465 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam…

Sonali D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17 (3) Erstwhile Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

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

Manjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 30(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 6098/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Naveen KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.6098/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Manjit Singh, The Income Tax Officer, 69, Sant Nagar, vs. New Delhi – 110 065. Ward-30(4), New Delhi. PAN ABTPS4939A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Naveen Kumar, Advocate. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)10, New Delhi, Dated 26.07.2017, for the A.Y. 2013-2014, challenging the levy o…

Pankaj P. Saraiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 31 Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1130/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Flat Acit, Central Circle-31, No. 801, 8Th Floor, Shiv Vs. Central Range-7 Prisha, Plot, No. 65, Jvpd Mumbai, 4Th Floor, Link Road Scheme, Vile Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400049. Road, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Dcit, Central Circle- 5/E Vaibhav, 140, S V Road, Vs. 4(3), Mumbai, 19Th Floor, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- Air India Building, 400056. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Awungshi Gimsan, Cit Dr & Mr. Abirama Karthikeyan Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Awungshi Gimsan, CIT DR &

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…hrough the written submission filed by the assessee, reproduced at page 4-6 of the order dated 17.08.2016 and the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) referred to Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) and the decision in CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510, MAK Data v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) and CIT v. Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 684 (P&H), the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A and confirmed the penalty of Rs.40,73,990/- imposed by the AO. 10. Before…