Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (309 ITR 110), spanning 2015 to 2023.

309 ITR 110High Court2009#6796 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee has not failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for assessment when the Assessing Officer had called for and received all details regarding claims, such as 100% depreciation, along with supporting invoices. A claim being unsustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. · section 271(1)(c) · failure to disclose · inaccurate particulars · unsustainable claim · depreciation · material facts

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 13240 Taxmann.com 569

Issues it is cited on

regular assessment section 10 section 142 section 139 section 143(1)section 11 previous year section 15 section 25 section 13 section 143 prescribed

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 110 , wherein it was held as follows: "In those circumstances, it could not be regarded that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. As the facts revealed that the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment order has called for all the details regarding the case where 100 per cent.…

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1863/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07 Gujarat Power The ACIT, Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle, 7th Floor, Regency Vs Gandhinagar Plaza, Opp. Rahul (Respondent) Tower, Nr. Madhur Hall, Anandnagar Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACG5596J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-09-2022 Date of pronounc…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1862/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1861/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1860/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3002/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3002/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Income Tax, 18/19, Postal Bank, Jahangir Street, Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaaat4900D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Challenging Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…tself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. By relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), in the case of CIT v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under: “8. In order to invoke the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Revenue should prove that the claim made was not sustainable in law and if the assessee had made a concealment of the particular income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petr…

ITO, Ward-3, Vellore vs. V M Venkatesa Mudaliar & Sons, Arakkonam

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. V.M. Venkatesa Mudaliar & Sons, Ward 3, 42-A, Melkalathur Village, Vellore Karnam Street, Arakkonam 631 001. [Pan Aaefv 5324J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…place of the words ' for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion' . Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in [2009] 309 ITR 110 (Mad) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. , wherein it was held as follows: ITA No. 922/2019. :- 9 -: In those circumstances, it could not be regarded that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. As the facts revealed that the Assessing Officer…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR

Section 140ASection 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Deputy Commissioner of Savita Oil Technologies Income-tax, Ltd. Central Circle 8(4) 66-67,Nariman Bhawan, v. 6th Floor, R.No. 658 Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 M.K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN:AAACS7934A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR Assessee by: Shri. Shiv Prakash स…

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Prudential Amc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blea.C.I.T, Circle – 2(2)(1) V. M/S. Icici Prudential Amc Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 8Th Floor, Peninsula Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013 Pan: Aaaci 1000 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

Section 154Section 156Section 244(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T, Circle – 2(2)(1) v. M/s. ICICI Prudential AMC Ltd., Room No. 545, 5th Floor, 8th Floor, Peninsula Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013 PAN: AAACI 1000 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan Date of Hearing : 14.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against t…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 110 , wherein it was held as follows: ITA 437/JP/2017_ 41 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) "In those circumstances, it could not be regarded that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. As the facts revealed that the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment order has called for…

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…& Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 362 ITR 160 (Kar) • CIT vs. Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680 (Mad) • CIT vs. Shyam RajSingh 367 ITR 74 (P &H) • CIT vs. Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) • CIT-II Lucknow Vs. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited MANU/UP/0358/2016 The above decision has been cited in support of the contention that disallowance of any claim cannot be become the basis of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, we find that t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Mcml Train Control Tehnologies Pvt Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 14/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.14/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mcml Train Control Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Circle 4(1), No.C-9, Industrial Estate, Chennai. Yelahanka, Bengaluru 560 064. [Pan Aafcm 3804Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A

Section 271Section 271(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.14/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. MCML Train Control Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Circle 4(1), No.C-9, Industrial Estate, Chennai. Yelahanka, Bengaluru 560 064. [PAN AAFCM 3804Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Madhavan,…

Crr Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…in place of the words ' for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion' . Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in [2009] 309 ITR 110 (Mad) Commissioner of Income-Tax - Vs - Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., wherein it was held as follows: “In those circumstances, it could not be regarded that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. As the facts revealed that the Assessing Officer who made the original ass…

F Harley & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…rmination of exact liability and not even estimated one. The assessee also placed reliance in support of its claim on the following decisions :- (i) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd reported in (2009) 309 ITR 110 (Mad) ; (ii) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Rotork Controls India Ltd reported in (2007) 293 ITR 311 (Mad) ; (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd vs CIT reported in (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del) ; (iv) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd reported in (2011) 242…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3392/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Aswani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Forum Mehta & Shri Aliasgar

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DT GARASIA, JM AND SHRI ASWANI TANEJA, AM I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT - 9(2)(1) Blue Dart Express Ltd., R.No. 204, 2nd floor, Blue Dart Centre, Airport Rd., Vs. AayakarBhavan, M.K. Rd., Andheri (E), Mumbai 400099. Mumbai 400020. PAN: AAACB0446L : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Respondentby : Ms. Forum Mehta & Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Date of Hearing : 08/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /02/2017 O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA, JM: The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed ag…

CIT vs. Engineers India Ltd

In the result, the appeal is

ITA - 300 / 2012HC Delhi26 Feb 2015

Section 10(33)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 199Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)

…ITA 300/2012 Page 1 of 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 10, 2015 Pronounced on: February 26, 2015 + ITA 300/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. N P Sahni, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati and Mr. Judy James, Advs. Versus ENGINEERS INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.…