Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.M. Rice Mills

253 ITR 17High Court2002#15516 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.M. Rice Mills

V.B. BUILDERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…m Vs. ITO in ITA No.5268/Del/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 dated 31/10/2017. 2 3. CIT Vs. Prem Prakash [SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 9492-9494 of 1981 : (1984) 146 ITR fSt.) 3 (SC)]; 4. CIT Vs. Kalicharan Agarwalla & Co. [(1984) 146 ITR 634 (Cal.)]; 5. CIT Vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (Punj); 6. CIT Vs. Devandas Perumal & Co. [(1983) 140 ITR 943 (Bom.)]; 7. CIT, Poona vs. B.D. Ramchandra (Bom.)150 ITR 242; 8. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (HC) (Bom.); 9. CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [2010] 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); & 10.CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P & H). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand…

ITO 12 (3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S MEHTA INFOCOM PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 7678/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7678/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-12(3)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Mehta Infocom Pvt. Room No.145, 1St Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mehta House, Af/3, Cama Road, Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Nr, Hub Mall, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm2000E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Of Rs.4,76,659/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Original Return Of Income & Thus Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Within The Meaning Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 7678/M/2019 A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 69C

…is not sustainable.” 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sanrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 83) (P & H) and CIT Vs. M. M. Rice Mills 253 ITR 17 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated. Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we a…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…sment proceedings. I have noted that the AO had disallowed the repair expense on an estimate basis by applying a ratio and hence, no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable on such an estimated addition.” 9.3 In the case of CJT v. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (P&H), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had held as under:- "3. We have heard Shri R.P. Sawhney, senior advocate appearing for the appellant, and have gone through the record. In our opinion, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. A perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) shows…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. M.R.K.PIPES LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 636/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddawr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271(1)(c)

…vs Krishi Tyre Retrading and Rubber Ind. (2014), 44 taxmann. Com 9 (Raj.) (iii) CIT vs Mahendra Singh Khiedla (2012) 252 ctr 453 (iv) Harigopal Singh vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) (v) CIT vs Vijay Kumar Jain 38 DTR 345 (Chattisgarh) (vi) CIT vs M.M. Rice Mils,253 ITR 17 (Pun. & Har) (vii) CIT vs Aero Traders (P) Ltd. (2010), 322 ITR 316 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs Shri Narain Jamanalal & Co. (1989) 232 ITR 311, 313 (M.P.) 2.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the decisi…

SONALI A SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7211/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7211/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Smt. Sonali A. Shah Ito 21(2)(4) Prop M/S. Mannat Mumbai Vs. Enterprises Flat No.301/302/302, Raj Prashar, 3Rd Floor, 95-F, Indrayan Road, Mumbai- 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpa7722N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 41(1)

…particulars or concealment of income in showing less GP in the businesses. Mere estimation of gross profit will not lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 9. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (P & H) following the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714) held as under: ITA No.5720/M/2013 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah 8 “merely because the addition had been made on estimate under the proviso to s. 145(1) by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of account was too low a…

SONALI A. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…particulars or concealment of income in showing less GP in the businesses. Mere estimation of gross profit will not lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 9. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (P & H) following the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714) held as under: 8 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah “merely because the addition had been made on estimate under the proviso to s. 145(1) by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of account was too low as there were defec…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.M. Rice Mills (253 ITR 17) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax