CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

…be bona-fide one. 4.8. Thereafter, the AO relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 166 taxmann 65 (SC), judgement of Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudhan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 held the appellant in default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of the said additions made. Accordingly, the A.O. vide impugned order levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act amounting to Rs. 1,79,05,055/-. The relevant ex…

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

…which submissions were given by it as discussed in the penalty order. The AO was not convinced with the explanation or assessee and after considering the merit of the addition and relying on the ratio of decision in the case CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd 327 ITR 51 of Jurisdictional High Court alongwith other decisions of different Courts, concluded that the assessee has concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,49,29,635/- and imposed the penalty of Rs. 48,43,920/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the above income and passed the order. 2.2 On be…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF HOMES KOKAPET PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

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

…the income of the assessee. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was also levied on the said addition. In doing so, AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Ltd. 327 ITR 51. AO concluded as under :- “6. In view of these facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income with the intention to evade taxes, and is, therefore, liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty of Rs.1,39,36,395/- is levied in accordance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) being t…

JAIN PERIPHERALS P.LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

…e Assessee was deliberate act to furnish the inaccurate particulars of income, which lead to evade the income of Rs.79,00,185/-” and relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 wherein it was held that that “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 is mala fide, Explanation 1 to section 271…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ny, the facts would not have come to the notice of the department and the same would have escaped the eyes of the Department. The assessing Minerals Managements Services India P. Ltd. 4 officer relied on the decision of CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.: 327 ITR 51 (Del.).The facts in the case of Zoom Communications were completely different inasmuch as the claims, inter-alia, deduction of income tax paid/ equipment's written off made by the assessee were patently erroneous and had no footings to stand at all. The facts of that case cannot be compared with the present case. The said decision has also been de…

RAKESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7804/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rakesh Gupta, Acit, बनाम H – 87, Ashok Viohar, Circle : 34 (1), Phase – 1, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 052. Pan No. Aewpg7366R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

…observed that the ld. CIT (Appeals) referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushlaya 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del.) sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. It is observed that an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon’ble High Court considering its earlier decision in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushlaya (supra) held as…

ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), DELHI vs. DOROTHY FANTHOME, DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Smt. Dorothy Fanthome, Circle- 30(1), 10/21, First Floor, New Delhi Kalkaji Extention, Delhi-110019 Pan – Aaapf7267L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ion Dehradun. No reason was mentioned by the ld. AO to discredit the submission of assessee that on advise of Patwari they had taken the Municipal Limit from Ghantaghar (Clocked hour). 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT(A) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. , 327 ITR 51 has held that : “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 fine. If the claim besides being incorrect in law is mala fide, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) would…

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

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

…and the assessee would have escaped. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. DR submitted that the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case is justified:- i) CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51 (Del); ii) Gouli Mahadevappa vs. CIT, 356 ITR 90 (Kar); iii) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd., 376 ITR 1 (Cal); iv) Jawahar Lal Jain (HUF), 370 ITR 712 (P&H) 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the vari…

YUVRAJ SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Yuvraj Singh Income Tax Officer S-337, Ground Floor, Greater Vs Ward – 30 (1) Kailash, Part-Ii New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan No.Bieps9585D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty". Further reliance is also made on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51. Considering the above, I confirm the penalty imposed by the AO. Accordingly, the above ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and heard the Ld. DR. It is an admitted fact that despite sale of jewellery and earning…

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…ing Officer, however, was not convinced by the submissions of the assessee and following the judicial decisions relied upon in the penalty order, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communications Private Limited, 327 ITR 51, levied the penalty vide his separate order(s) dated 08/03/2013 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the…

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…ing Officer, however, was not convinced by the submissions of the assessee and following the judicial decisions relied upon in the penalty order, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communications Private Limited, 327 ITR 51, levied the penalty vide his separate order(s) dated 08/03/2013 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the…

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

…ing Officer, however, was not convinced by the submissions of the assessee and following the judicial decisions relied upon in the penalty order, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communications Private Limited, 327 ITR 51, levied the penalty vide his separate order(s) dated 08/03/2013 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,76,04,180/-, Rs.1,85,13,000/- and Rs.1,39,60,754/- for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively 3.4 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty in all the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Itl Twin Tower, Circle-1(2), . New Delhi. Block A, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9671L

…viable in the instant case. 7. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. Relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 166 taxman 65; Guljag Industries Ltd. vs. CPO, 293 ITR 584 (SC);and K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC), the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.45,59,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 8. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitte…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SRAVANTHI KODURU, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…T (Appeals) was patently wrong in deleting the penalty because prima facie the provisions of Section 271(1)(C) were attracted in this case. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51 (Delhi) to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that had the return of the assessee not picked up for scrutiny assessment, the assessee’s wrong claim would not have been detected and it would have meant loss to the revenue. It was submitted that it was a clear case of filing of inaccurate 3 particulars because the amount which had b…

MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishimahavir Prasad Gupta, Vs. Acit, E-165, Shastri Nagar, Circle-38(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agwpg5362M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…st on refund of income tax the penalty is leviable as the assessee has concealed his income for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has also drawn support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd 327 ITR 51. Consequently, he levied the penalty of Rs. 1701220/- vide order dated 24.09.2014. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and held that penalty is legally sustainable and correctly levied. He further held that the evidences produced by the assessee were not credible and because…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODERN STAGE SERVICE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafm8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

…ted penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of the section 271(l)(c). Later on, the AO, placing reliance on the cases Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur V. Hari Prasad (1987) 167 ITR 603 (AP), Dharmendra Textile Processors I.T.A. NO. 198/D/2014 Assessment Year 2009-10 (2008) 166 Taxman 65 (SC), K.P. Madhusudan 251 ITR 99 (SC) and Drapco Electric Corporation 122 ITR 341 (Guj), levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) holding as under: "There is no force in this argument of the assessee. The…