CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd.

328 ITR 167High Court#24507 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd.

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

…owance under section 14A of the Act Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.32,922/-. The Ld. A.R., therefore, submitted that on mere change of heads of income by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)© is not attracted relying on the following decisions: CIT vs. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (P&H - HC) CIT vs. Shyam Tex International Ltd. 43 DTR 19 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Chandrasekaran [2015] 56 taxmann.com 210 (Kamataka) Bharat Tiles & Marble (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (Mumbai Trib.) dated 14.02.2018 Parinee Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd 7 SOT 181 (Mum ITAT) M/s Supe…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…us with the activity specifically eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A on the export profit. 1. CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals (St Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 212 (Raj) 2. CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Indersons Leather (P) Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (P&H) 4. Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Del) 5. CIT vs. EICON International (13) Ltd. 166 Taxman 12 (Del) 6. CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd. 177 Taxman 37 (Del) 7. CIT vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd. 211 CTR 543 (Del) 8. CIT vs. Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. 326 ITR 429 (P&H) 9. Geeta Prints (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 247 CTR 620 (Guj.)…

ITO 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ready Mix Concrete Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1731/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1731/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) I.T.O. 1(3)(1) M/S. Ready Mix Concrete बनाम/ Room No. 541, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, 32-34, Veer, Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr2563G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.H.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

…hority. The AR cited the following decisions from the various fora: 1. Reliance Petroproducts vs CIT 322 ITR 158 (SC): Mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 2. CIT vs Indersons Leather P. Ltd. 328 ITR 167 (Hon’ble P&H High Court): There cannot be any penalty when the AO treats rental receipt under a different head. 3. M/s Eurolink Trading P. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-9(1)(3) [ITAT “J” Bench, Mumbai ITA no. 2925/Mum/2010(AY: 2004-05): There can be genuine difference of opinion in appreciating the principles of law but it does not mean that the ass…