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 367,164 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.

M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for AY 2007-08

ITA 6567/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6567/Del/2013 AY: 2005-06 & ITA Nos. 6568/Del/2013 AY: 2007-08 Neel Metal Products Ltd. ACIT, 601, Hemkunt Chamber Nehru Place Company Circle 13(1) vs. New Delhi 110 018 New Delhi PAN: AABCN6304Q AND ITA Nos. 6377/Del/2013 AY: 2007-08 ACIT, Neel Metal Products Ltd. Company Circle 13(1) 601, Hemkunt Chamber Nehru Place vs. New Delhi New Delhi 110 018 PAN: AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt.Naina Soin Kapil…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for AY 2007-08

ITA 6377/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6567/Del/2013 AY: 2005-06 & ITA Nos. 6568/Del/2013 AY: 2007-08 Neel Metal Products Ltd. ACIT, 601, Hemkunt Chamber Nehru Place Company Circle 13(1) vs. New Delhi 110 018 New Delhi PAN: AABCN6304Q AND ITA Nos. 6377/Del/2013 AY: 2007-08 ACIT, Neel Metal Products Ltd. Company Circle 13(1) 601, Hemkunt Chamber Nehru Place vs. New Delhi New Delhi 110 018 PAN: AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt.Naina Soin Kapil…

M/S. Krishna Maruti Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4173/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate and Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)

…e, therefore, stated that on these facts, the following decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable :- (i) CIT Vs. Morgan Finvest (P.) Ltd. – [2013] 213 Taxman 23 (Delhi)(Mag.). (ii) CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P.Ltd. – [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi). 6. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the 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 i…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he decision reported in K.P.Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/ [2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of inc…

Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA/399/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…ily but had filed revised return after AO confronted the assessee and assessee was asked to explain claim of loss. Moreover, we are also guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: ''It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect, in law, would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If the claim besides being incorrect, in law,…

Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/398/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…ily but had filed revised return after AO confronted the assessee and assessee was asked to explain claim of loss. Moreover, we are also guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: ''It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect, in law, would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If the claim besides being incorrect, in law,…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5236/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e issued by the AO u/s 274 of the Act is not standalone document which is based on assessment order; that the notice has been issued in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the cases of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. – 327 ITR 510 (Delhi); Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT – 358 ITR 593 (SC); UOI vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors – 295 ITR 244; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT – 236 ITR 977; CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. – 91 ITR 467; CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar – 371 ITR 19 (Cal.); ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86; Smt. Kran Devi vs. ACIT – (2009) 125 TTJ 6…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5235/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e issued by the AO u/s 274 of the Act is not standalone document which is based on assessment order; that the notice has been issued in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the cases of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. – 327 ITR 510 (Delhi); Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT – 358 ITR 593 (SC); UOI vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors – 295 ITR 244; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT – 236 ITR 977; CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. – 91 ITR 467; CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar – 371 ITR 19 (Cal.); ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86; Smt. Kran Devi vs. ACIT – (2009) 125 TTJ 6…

Acti C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Quixotic Healthcare, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 812/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh
Section 271Section 80Section 80I

…n 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 25% as against 100% deduction without appreciating the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile (306 ITR 277) & Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (327 ITR 510). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the Act from the A.Y. 2007-08 by making substantial expansion. After 5 years of claim the assessee once again made substantial expansion and started claiming deduction @100% from 6th year onwards u/s 80IC of the Act. The AO did not allow the assessee the 100% c…

M/S Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4149/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…ttracting the civil liability/penalty. 4.11 The case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) was again analysed and followed in the recent case by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication P Ltd, 327 ITR 510 (Del) [2010) (ITA No.07/2010) order dated 24/05/2010. The Hon'ble High Court has noted in Para Nos.19 and 20 of its order as :- “lt is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to…

M/S Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4148/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…ttracting the civil liability/penalty. 4.11 The case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) was again analysed and followed in the recent case by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication P Ltd, 327 ITR 510 (Del) [2010) (ITA No.07/2010) order dated 24/05/2010. The Hon'ble High Court has noted in Para Nos.19 and 20 of its order as :- “lt is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to…

M/S Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4147/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…ttracting the civil liability/penalty. 4.11 The case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) was again analysed and followed in the recent case by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication P Ltd, 327 ITR 510 (Del) [2010) (ITA No.07/2010) order dated 24/05/2010. The Hon'ble High Court has noted in Para Nos.19 and 20 of its order as :- “lt is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rbm Pati Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 40A(2)(b)

…did not take any suo motu action for correcting the error either at the time of original assessment proceedings or at the time of re-assessment. 1(c). Whether the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Zoom Communications [327 ITR 510 (Del)] and Escorts Finance [328 ITR 44] wherein it has been held that the plea of “oversight" was not acceptable in the era of no-scrutiny assessment.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at a loss of Rs. 19,22,47,512/-. Assessment order u/s 143(3) was completed on 7.12.2009, whereby the declared loss was…

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…gard to the claim of the assessee that it was malafide, 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) Limited, (2010) 327 ITR 510 is of no help to them as therein the High Court was considering the question of levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act wherein it had concluded to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with malafide intention which is not the case herein. P a g e | 14 ITA No. 1772/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Solidity Developers Private…

Ram Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee against the penalty proceedings stands allowed

ITA 2231/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 33(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L & Ay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 24(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Sh. Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 69Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAHARISHI PRASHANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal ITO, Ward 33(4) C/o M/s RRA New Delhi vs. TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 PAN: ACCPL5384L & AY: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal ITO, Ward 24(4) C/o M/s RRA New Delhi vs. TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 PAN: ACCPL5384L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Sh.Deepesh Garg, Sh. Abhishek Anant, Advs. Department by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hea…

Sh. Ram Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee against the penalty proceedings stands allowed

ITA 1692/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 33(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L & Ay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 24(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Sh. Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 69Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAHARISHI PRASHANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal ITO, Ward 33(4) C/o M/s RRA New Delhi vs. TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 PAN: ACCPL5384L & AY: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal ITO, Ward 24(4) C/o M/s RRA New Delhi vs. TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 PAN: ACCPL5384L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Sh.Deepesh Garg, Sh. Abhishek Anant, Advs. Department by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hea…

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…ishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer in the penalty order also levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 in which the High Court upheld the penalty levied for wrong claim of deduction on account of income tax payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This judgement has also been relied upon by ld. DR during the course of arguments. On going through the assessment order, we find that assessee while explaining the above issue, submitted before the A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Kobelco Construction Equipments India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. No.6405/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs M/S Kobelco Construction Equipment Circle 14(2), New Delhi. India Pvt. Ltd., C-20, Sourth Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi. (Pan:Aacck9469N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Sumit Kalra, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Deletion Of Penalty By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi {For Short “Ld.Cit(A)”} For Asstt. Year 2008-09, Revenue Preferred This Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Distribution Of Hydraulic Excavators Which Primarily Include Sales Of Machinery

For Appellant: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kalra, Advocate
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B ’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.6405/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, vs M/s Kobelco Construction Equipment Circle 14(2), New Delhi. India Pvt. Ltd., C-20, Sourth Extension Part-II, New Delhi. (PAN:AAcCK9469N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Sumit Kalra, Advocate Date of hearing: 29.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2018 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the deletion of penalty by the lea…

M/S Colour Cottex Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-5(2), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri. B.M. Monga, Shri. Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)

…ade against the assessee stands undisputed, the factum of furnishing of inaccurate particulars stands proved and 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.). 8. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and we find strength in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the claim of the assessee was a bonafide claim and there was no malafide on the part of the assessee. The various Courts have held that penalty under section 271(1(c) on the grounds of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of…

M/S. Fortune Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Central -II, Bhopal

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 84/IND/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…58/-- & Rs.32,35,858/-respectively are hereby, cancelled . It is the said order which was not interfered with by the Tribunal in further appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon an order passed by the Delhi High Court reported as (2010) 327 ITR 510 [Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Limited], to contend that if the issue is not debatable then the assessee is liable for penalty. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and find that no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. In the present case, the Assessing Officer found that the assesse…