CIT Vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. 335 ITR 558, CIT v. Amar Nath

322 ITR 73High Court2010#10519 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. 335 ITR 558, CIT v. Amar Nath

The E & Nf Railway Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The E&Nf Railway Co- Circle-37, Operative Bank Ltd. 3, Govt. Place (West), 34A & B, Sashi Bhusan Vs. Dey Street, Room No.13, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 012 Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae3431A Assessee By : Shri N.C. Mondal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnine Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Mondal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debbarma, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM AND SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, AM The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, The E&NF Railway Co- Circle-37, operative Bank Ltd. 3, Govt. Place (West), 34A & B, Sashi Bhusan Vs. Dey Street, Room No.13, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700 012 Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAAE3431A Assessee by : Shri N.C. Mondal, AR Revenue by : Shri Bonnine Debbarma, DR Date of hearing: 12.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 27.08.2024 O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the…

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 421/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Jagmohan Singh, बनाम The Dy. CIT # 2409, Krishna Nagar, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Ludhiana-141001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AEHPS2203N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Heari…

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed" Further reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements— CIT vs. Hans Christian Gass in ITA 2209/2010 Bombay HC reported in (2013) TaxPub (DT) 1975 − 359 ITR 101, CIT Vs. DCM Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 322 ITR 73, CIT Vs. Shahabad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (P&H) − HCL Technologies vs DCIT in ITA No. 3702/JP/2017 (ITAT Delhi) Swati Pearls & Jewellers Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1401/HYD/2014 (Hyderabad ITAT) − - CIT Vs Ms. Sania Mirza in I.T.T.A. No. 526 of 2011reported in All High Courts (5353) Andhra Pradesh HC (84) It is further submitted that ld. CIT (A) ha…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…of deduction in computation of non- agricultural income bona fide made and for a wrong claim of relief under section SOP were found to be decisions on the facts on which no question of law would arise as held in CIT v. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 73 (Punj. &Har.). In the case of CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 /[2009] 184 Tax/nan 460 (Punj. &Har.) it was held that "a wrong claim as business income of what should be treated as short term capital gains on the advice of the assessee's Counsel, could not be treated as an instance of deliberate default. In the case of Chandra Pal Ba…

Shri Sachin T. Sankpal, Mumbai vs. ACIT-26(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5202/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gurbinder Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on facts and in law. Threat of penalty cannot become a gag and / or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong. Again, in CIT Vs. Shahabad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., 322 ITR 73, Punjab & Haryana High Court held that making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information which may call for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5 Shri Sachin T. Sankpal 35. Reverting back to the present case it is quite evident that assessee had declared the full facts; the full factual matrix…

Gangacharan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3620/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Gangacharan Choudhary बिाम/ Ito 19(2)(3), Mumbai 140A, Vakola Bridge Society, Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz (E), V. Mumbai 400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aigpc2139N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…itambarads Dulichand reported at 273 ITR 271 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises reported at 322 ITR 80 5. Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 73. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 158 7. Mumbai-tribunal decision in the case of Skill Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT, 139 ITD 25 (Mum.) (Trib) 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of PHI Seeds India Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 13 Thus it was prayed that the penalty be delete…

Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

…55,497/-, ITAT has deleted an amount of Rs. 6,59,225/- and has confirmed only Rs. 3,96,272/-. The Ld. AR also relied on the following case laws for the preposition that the penalty was otherwise also not leviable – CIT vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. 322 ITR 73 (P&H), CIT ITA No. 2461/D/15 Page 3 of 11 Chander Pal Aggarwal vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 112 (Delhi High Court), CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 219 ITR 267 (Del.), CIT vs. Mata Pd. 278 ITR 354 (All), VIP Industries vs. ACIT 21 DTR 153 (Mum.) and Kanbay Software India P. Lt…

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

…ment in the return of income. We find that following case laws support the facts of the assessee:- ITA No.1700/Kol/2012- 4 C-AM Sh.Ram Ch.Agarwal 5.1.1. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Shahabad Co- op. Sugar Mills Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 73 (P&H), wherein it has been held that: “From the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any such point having been raised by the Revenue. In any case, reasoning which has been applied for setting aside penalty in respect of wrong claim under section 80P of the Act will also apply to wrong claim under the head of depreciation. Making of wrong claim…

M/S. Vivek Gyan Uday Foundation, New Delhi vs. ADIT(E), New Delhi

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 530/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri S.V.Mehrotra, Am Ita No. 530/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

…ntention that when assessee had furnished all the necessary details before AO and explanation offered by assessee was bona fide, then no penalty is leviable (a) CIT vs. S. Dhanabal [2009] 309 ITR 268 (Delhi) (b) CIT vs. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 73 (P&H) (c) CIT vs. Ashim Kumar Agarwal & Another, 275 ITR 48 (Jharkhand) (d) CIT vs. S D Rice Mills 275 ITR 206 (P&H) (e) K C Builders vs. Asstt. CIT 265 ITR 562 (SC) (f) SPS Steel & Power Ltd. ITA no. 1391 & 1414/Kol/2011. 6. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 600/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, CITFor Respondent: Sh.S. Subramanian, CA

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ppeals) mainly placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises (322 ITR 80) & in CIT v. Shahabad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (322 ITR 73), deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) has also placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in Kamy Software Solutions P. Ltd. (214 CTR 403) & in S.V. Kalyanam v. ITO (327 ITR 477). The CIT(Appeals) further found that the details furnished by the assessee are not 15 I.T.A. No.600/Mds/12 inaccurate…