Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.G.Technologies Ltd.

370 ITR 7High Court2015#9963 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.G.Technologies Ltd.

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

…6 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A] conducted by Department, the wrong claims were detected. The assessee had never voluntarily disclosed his wrong claims. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.G.Technologies Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 7 (Delhi) has held as under in the identical facts : Quote, “ 16. We have examined the aforesaid reasoning but are unable to accept the said finding. All claims or deductions wrongly made cannot be treated as bona fide and protected by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whether or not the conduct of the assessee was legitimate or mere leg…

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…se, it was only because of survey conducted by Department, the wrong claims were detected. The assessee had never voluntarily disclosed his wrong claims. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs N G technologies Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 7 (Delhi) has held as under in the identical facts : 6 Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] Quote, “ 16. We have examined the aforesaid reasoning but are unable to accept the said finding. All claims or deductions wrongly made cannot be treated as bona fide and protected by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whether or not the conduct of the asse…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 7504/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, CIT - DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…f that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return of income deliberately and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd 327 ITR 510 and NG Technology Ltd 370 ITR 7 and further referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt Ltd penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,49,41,932/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 3,98,76,463/- in Assessment Year 2014-15. 9. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended t…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 7503/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, CIT - DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…f that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return of income deliberately and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd 327 ITR 510 and NG Technology Ltd 370 ITR 7 and further referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt Ltd penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,49,41,932/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 3,98,76,463/- in Assessment Year 2014-15. 9. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended t…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5478/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…fact that the assessee had taken a chance by making a patently incorrect and unsubstantially claim and the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Zoom communication Pvt. Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT vs NG Technologies Limited (2015)370 ITR 7, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Limited (2010) 328 ITR 53? 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any Minerals Managements Services India P. Ltd. 6 ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6408/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Circle – 16(2) Ltd., New Delhi Plot –A, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, Pan No. Aadcm 6414 C New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None- Revenue By Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 38, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…fact that the assessee had taken a chance by making a patently incorrect and unsubstantially claim and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT Vs. NG Technologies Limited (2015) 370 ITR 7, CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs. Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53? 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application…

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2647/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…factory building was rented out by the assessee in financial year ending 31.03.2008 and no depreciation was claimed for AY 2008- 09(pb/page 49 and 68) . The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. N.G.Technologies Limited reported in (2015) 370 ITR 7(Delhi) is relevant and applicable, wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: “16. We have examined the aforesaid reasoning but are unable to accept the said finding. All claims or deductions wrongly made cannot be treated as bona fide and protected by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whether or not the conduct of the assessee w…

SHAILENDRA NAHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 260/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Mr. Shailendra Nahar Acit 25(2) 201, H Panchavan C-10, 412 Bkc Complex, Complex, Mumbai-400051 V. Laxman Mhatre Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aavpn1018L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…allowed and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is set aside. No costs.” At this stage , it will be relevant to refer to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. NG Technologies Limited reported in 8 I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (2015) 370 ITR 7(Delhi) which also dealt with glaring mistake committed by the tax-payer while filing return of income and penalty was affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The SLP filed against this decision by assessee with Hon’ble Supreme Court also stood dismissed , reported in (2016) 70 taxmann.com 37(SC). Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the asse…

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…lied upon decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of SBI DFHI Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (2016) 71 taxmann.com 178 (Mum-trib.) . The learned CIT DR also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. N.G Technologies Ltd. reported in (2015) 370 ITR 7(Delhi) and in this case later on Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by the assessee which was reported in (2016) 70 taxmann.com 37(SC). It was submitted that an opinion of CA is not relevant to get out of clutches of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld. CIT DR would also rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahesh. M.…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.

ITA/910/2016HC Delhi16 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14ASection 271Section 37Section 44A

…$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 910/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P. Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 16.01.2017 The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which affirmed the findings of the Appellate Commission…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…ue expenditure as claimed by the Assessee could never be said to be pre-operative or pre-commencement in nature as alleged. 2. In para 1.2, the Ld. CIT-OR has relied upon Oeihi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. NG Technologies Ltd. since reported in 370 ITR 7, which was distinguishable on facts. In this case, Assessee had claimed loss on account of sale o f plant & machinery i.e. fixed assets in the profit & loss account and it was held that this should obviously not have-been claimed as it was contrary to elementary and well known basic principles o f accounting. As the claim could not be explained and…