Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT

341 ITR 646High Court#24718 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. JAY KETAN PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Some of the often quoted decisions are Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) (ii) ITO V. Nandlal & Co., 341 ITR 646 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., 348 ITR 339 (Del) (iv) CIT v. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad) 7. Consequently, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.9,42,29,730/- is deleted. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result, grounds of appeal no. 1, 3 & 4 become infructuous. 8. Hence, appeal of the…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. JAY KETAN PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Some of the often quoted decisions are Com (i) KC Builders v. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) (ii) ITO V. Nandlal & Co., 341 ITR 646 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., 348 ITR 339 (Del) (iv) CIT v. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad) 7. Consequently, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,16,27,860/- is deleted. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result, grounds of appeal no. 1, 3 & 4 become infructuous. 8. Hence, appeal of the…

ACIT, CIRCLE 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle – 16(1) V. 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Heman ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram

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

…g the penalty and therefore is such a case no penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Appellant further placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Nandlal 5 M/s. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., & Co (341 ITR 646)(Bom), Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (348 ITR 339)(Del), P. Balasubramanian (354 ITR 116)(Mad). Since the addition on which penalty was imposed is no more in existence, therefore, respectively following judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of KG Builders (supra) and Jurisdictional High Court in case of Nandlal & Co. vs. CIT (supra), penalty of ₹.…