Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prithipal Singh

249 ITR 670Supreme Court of India2001#10670 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prithipal Singh

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. DCIT, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAUPS0222Q Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Somya Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1249/Del/2017 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [hereinafter referred to…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1)(2),, MUMBAI vs. PRATHAM TELECOM INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 479/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…to the Assessment Year 2011-12 under consideration? 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Prithipal 2 Singh & Co. in (2001) 249 ITR 670 (SC) (supra), which was rendered in the provision existed before 1975. Hence, it is not applicable to the period after 1st April, 1976?" 7. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of…

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

…es not appear to have been noticed by the Bench in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. 's case [2007] 289 ITR 83 (SC); [2007] 9 SCC 665. Reference to the order by this court dismissing the Revenue's Civil Appeal No. 7961 of 1996 in CIT v. Prithipal Singh and Co. [20011 249 ITR 670 (SC) is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) was not in existence. The view of this court in Harprasad's case [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes losses." (Emphasis Supplied)" 8.11 Coming to the accounting of mu…

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…oes not appear to have been noticed by the Bench in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.'s case [2007] 289 ITR 83 (SC); [2007] 9 SCC 665. Reference to the order by this court dismissing the Revenue's Civil Appeal No. 7961 of 1996 in CIT v. Prithipal Singh and Co. [2001] 249 ITR 670 (SC) is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to section 271(l)(c) was not in existence. The view of this court in Harprasad's case [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes losses." (Emphasis Supplied) 69 | P a g e In sum and substance…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CRN INVESTMENTS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2662/CHNY/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2662/Mds/2004 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1996-97 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Crn Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 10, Karpagambal Nagar, Company Circle – I(3), Luz, Chennai – 4. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacc3114A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…hort ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 1996-97. 2 I.T.A. No. 2662/Mds/2004 2. Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v Prithipal Singh & Co. 249 ITR 670 set aside his earlier order by way of rectification and deleted the penalty. According to the Ld. D.R., the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra) is very much available on the date of passing of the original order on 17.03.2004. The amendment brought in by way of explanation 4(a) by Financial Act 2002 is only to clarify…

M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 202/KOL/2014[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sed in the P & L account. Further, disallowance of interest as made by the AO is on estimation basis and no penalty can be levied on the same. The assesse, further relied on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court the case of Prithipal Singh & Co reported in 249 ITR 670 which affirmed the principle laid down by the Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the respect of the “word” as referred in the section 271(1)(c) of the act. The CIT-A after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the impugned penalty for the reason that the assessee could not furnish any explanation inspite of having availed…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1458/2006HC Delhi17 Sept 2007
Section 10BSection 260Section 271(1)(c)

…nalty even where the income is not positive was made effective only from 1st April, 2003, that is from the assessment year 2003-04 onwards. This amendment came after the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prithipal Singh [2001] 249 ITR 670, affirming the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that for levy of penalty there had to be a positive income. The position that existed in law earlier has been explained. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this regard reads as under (ITR,p.105): “Applying Elphinstone case [1960] 40 ITR 142 (SC) to the present case, it…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…to the assessment year 1996-97, relying upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co., 183 ITR 69, which was affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co., Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 1996 dated 27.07.2000, reported in 249 ITR 670 (SC). In the appeal filed by the Revenue in the High Court of Delhi, the following two questions of law were framed: " 1. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessee has been assessed at a minus figure/loss? http://JUD…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…to the assessment year 1996-97, relying upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co., 183 ITR 69, which was affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co., Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 1996 dated 27.07.2000, reported in 249 ITR 670 (SC). In the appeal filed by the Revenue in the High Court of Delhi, the following two questions of law were framed: " 1. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessee has been assessed at a minus figure/loss? http://JUD…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

ITA/183/2001HC Delhi29 Jul 2005

…result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh's case of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (183 ITR 69) and of the Supreme Court (249 ITR 670) were applicable and that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT (243 ITR 776) was not. To fully appreciate the scope an ambit of the questions raised in these appeals it would be necessary to examine what was exactly decided in the two Prithipal Singh cases and in what context those decisions were rendered. ln C…