Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nath Bros. Exim International

288 ITR 670High Court2007#6754 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 270ASection 37(1)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271(1)section 27section 271section 271(1)(c)companyindiapersonsection 14businessdocument

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nath Bros. Exim International

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…imply concealment or misreporting of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer's initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A without clear evidence of intent to evade tax is legally unsustainable. • Case Law: CIT v. Nath Bros. Exirn International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del): The Delhi High Court ruled that penalties cannot be imposed based on estimated additions or assumptions. Since the additions here are based on presumptive discrepancies, the penalty initiation is unjustified. 11. Stock Discrepancy Requires Independent Verification: Case Law: CIT v. Anandha Metal Corporation (2005) 273 ITR 262 (Mad): The co…

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t and had simply rested its condusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith and that penalty could not be levied. [(2001) 119 Taxman 433(sc)l. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nath Bross. (e) Exim International Ltd. (288 ITR 670), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that. “Where assessee had claimed dividend income as its business income and according to assessee, it was entitled to a deduction under clause (bba) of Explanation to section 80HHC (4C'), merely because assessing officer held that assessee’s claim was wrong, penalty for concealment of income could not be im…

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…t and had simply rested its condusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith and that penalty could not be levied. [(2001) 119 Taxman 433(sc)l. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nath Bross. (e) Exim International Ltd. (288 ITR 670), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that. “Where assessee had claimed dividend income as its business income and according to assessee, it was entitled to a deduction under clause (bba) of Explanation to section 80HHC (4C'), merely because assessing officer held that assessee’s claim was wrong, penalty for concealment of income could not be im…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1068/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ions in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC), Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT, 251 ITR 373(Raj), CIT vs. Saheli Leasing & Finance Ltd., 191 Taxmann 165, Metal Rolling Works Ltd. vs. CIT 245 CTR 113(Bom) and CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. 288 ITR 670 (Del). 4. Learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee and held that merely because certain additions are made in respect of certain debatable issues, it does not mean that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and consequently liable for penalty. While following the decision dated 29.08.2016 of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court…

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…he assessee: I) Difference of Opinion - Not a fit Case to levy Penalty. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322ITR 158] (SC) b) CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi HC) c) Devsons Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT(A) [2011] 196 TAXMAN 21 (Delhi HC) d) CIT Vs. Bacardi Martini (2007) (288 ITR 585) (Delhi. HC) e) Karan Ragh a v Exports P Ltd vs CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Del HC) f) CIT v. Krishna Maruti Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.coml48 (Delhi HC) g) Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. [2003] (259 ITR 212) (Rajasthan HC) h…

M/S. RASHI WEARS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4327/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80l

…losed but wrong claims for special deduction were made, it was held that it was not a case of concealment of income & penalty could not be imposed. CIT vs International Audio Visual Co. (2007) 288 ITR 570 (Del) CIT vs Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del) b) Merely because a claim for deduction was found inadmissible, penalty does not necessarily follow. Balaji vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 (Kar) Page 2 of 7 ITA 4327/Del/14 Assessment Year 2008-09 Rashi Wears Pvt.Ltd. c) The Supreme Court rationale of the decision in CI'T (Addl.) vs Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244…

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…law will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance on: i) 322 ITR 158(SC) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products E) Mere disallowance of bonafide disputed claim cannot be visited with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Act 1961. Reliance on: i) 288 ITR 670 (Del.) CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International ii) 288 ITR 570 (Del.) CIT vs. International Audio Visual F) Imposition of penalty is not mandatory. Reliance on: i) 83 ITR 26 (SC) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa G) Assessee during assessment proceedings has submitted copy of registered sale deed in respect to sale of property. Assessee…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), MUMBAI vs. DHL OPERATIONS B.V., NETHERLANDS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

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

…culars of income. From merely a difference of opinion for allowing or disallowing the expenditure, it cannot be said that the assessee had intention to conceal of income. 7.9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court III the case of CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International, 288 ITR 670 has recently decided a similar issue. In this case assessee had claimed dividend income as part of business income and had. therefore claimed that it was to be included in the profit for purpose of Sec.80HHC. The A.O. disallowed the claim and imposed penalty. The Tribunal found that all the facts were disclosed and only the claim was made under e…

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

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (JM) (AM) ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "C", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.:- 2239, 2240/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 DCIT, Circle 12 (1) M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd. Vs. C-23, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi - 110 048 PAN AADCR6248M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CA Date of Hearing 19/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/12/2016 O R D E R Per ANADI N MISHRA. A.M. (A)These a…

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELH BEFORE SH. C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3052/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Hisar Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (PAN: AAACJ7097D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Sh. Rohit Jain & Sh. Deepesh, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Ashok Manchanda, Standing Counsel and Sh. A.K. Arora, CIT(DR) Date of hearing concluded on 07.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 31.03.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee i…

D.B. PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6339/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6339/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) D B Properties Private The Addl. Commissioner बनाम/ Limited, Of Income Tax, V. Db House, Yashodham, Range -9(1), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 063. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccd5197L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ajitkumar Srivastava
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…xpenditure/financial charges voluntarily cannot be equated to filing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support, the assessee company relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 670 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Limited reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). In the light of the above discussion, the assessee company prayed before the CIT(A) that penalty levied by the Revenue should be deleted. 7. The CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and the submiss…

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…at in reply to the questionnaire of the Assessing Officer, some new facts were 'discovered or Assessing Officer had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessee. " 34. Further in the case of CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) it was reiterated that: "5. What is required to be considered is whether there was any enquiry that was required to be made by the Assessing Officer before concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate or false particulars. In this case, we are of the view that no such enquiry was required to be made but there was only the need fo…

KANCHENJUNGA ADVERTISING PVT LTD

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…Page 12 of 19 17. In a series of judgments, this Court has affirmed the aforesaid legal position and these judgments are :- 1. CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 585 2. CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International (2007) 288 ITR 670 3. CIT v. International Audio Visual (2007) 288 ITR 570 18. In CIT v Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term “furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. It was observed that “inaccurate particulars” means the details supplied in the return which are not accurate, not exact or correc…

ASTRA HOUSING & INVESTMENT P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI NEW DELHI

ITA - 622 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011
Section 158Section 158BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC); CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H); CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises, (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H); Ms.Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) and CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 585 (Delhi). 11. The crux of the ratio of above decisions is that a mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In order to be covered within the proviso of clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271, there has to be…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/296/2006HC Delhi29 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…aire of the Assessing Officer, some new facts were discovered or Assessing Officer had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessed.” 34. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nath Bros. Exim International [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) it was reiterated that: “5. What is required to be considered is whether there was any enquiry that was required to be made by the AO before concluding that the assessed had furnished inaccurate or false particulars. In this case, we are of the view that no such enquiry was required to be made but there was only the need for appli…

M/S DE vs. ONS PVT LTDVS.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &

ITA - 367 / 2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…aire of the Assessing Officer, some new facts were discovered or Assessing Officer had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessed.” 34. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nath Bros. Exim International [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) it was reiterated that: “5. What is required to be considered is whether there was any enquiry that was required to be made by the AO before concluding that the assessed had furnished inaccurate or false particulars. In this case, we are of the view that no such enquiry was required to be made but there was only the need for appli…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/367/2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…aire of the Assessing Officer, some new facts were discovered or Assessing Officer had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessed.” 34. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nath Bros. Exim International [2007] 288 ITR 670 (Delhi) it was reiterated that: “5. What is required to be considered is whether there was any enquiry that was required to be made by the AO before concluding that the assessed had furnished inaccurate or false particulars. In this case, we are of the view that no such enquiry was required to be made but there was only the need for appli…