Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (343 ITR 434)

ARUN JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8885/Del/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: 13.06.2022

Section 143Section 271Section 69Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8885/Del/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Arun Jain ITO बनाम/ B-4/7, FF, Rana Pratap Ward- 47 (5) Vs. Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AALPJ3125A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA Sh. Zahid Parvez, Sr. DR ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : 13.06.2022 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 17.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER PRADIP KU…

KEYMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7535/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Such claim, although, may not be maintainable for the purposes of quantum proceedings, however would not invite penalty in the absence of falsity per se. 6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 343 ITR 434 (Del) held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for ad hoc disallowance made on estimated basis in the absence of any element of falsity per se. 7. In view of the aforesaid deliberations, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty in question. 8. In the result, the app…

ITO 32 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S DEORA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 108/Mum/2020 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Deora Enterprises Ward 32(1)(4) 401-402, Narbada Niwas Room No. 706, 7 Th Floor, Kautilya R.C. Patel Road, फनाभ/ Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chandavarkar Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Borivali West, Vs. Mumbai-400 092 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafd1878R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.07.21 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.21

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

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

…facts Delhi High court has already decided the issue that in the case of estimation of bogus purchases penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the cannot be sustained. We noted that this issue is squarely covered in the case of CIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 434 (Delhi), wherein it is held as under: - “6. It may be noted that in the next assessment year 2001-02, the total amount claimed by the assessee under the head "Provision for obsolescence of inventory" was Rs. 35,575. While the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the disallowance to 25 p…