Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.P. Singh and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

340 ITR 217High Court2012#12657 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 269SSSection 271DSection 68Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 269sssection 271dsection 269share application moneylevy of penaltysection 26undisclosed income

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.P. Singh and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Trendsetters Propmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Range-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 846/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Trendsetters Propmart Vs. Addl. Cit, Pvt Ltd, Range-25, New C/O. S-241, Basement, Delhi Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacct5284G Assessee By : Ms. Kanika Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…n 27.04.2018 and levied penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs thereon. This stood confirmed by the ld CIT(A). 4. The ld AR before us rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RP Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd reported in 340 ITR 217 (Del) wherein, it was held that once the share application money was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in the quantum assessment proceedings, the very same money cannot be treated as loan simplicitor for the purpose of levying penalty u/s 271D read with Section 269SS of the Act. Similar…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Platinum Towers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

…sed income in the hands of the assessed, it could not resort to proceedings under section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal." 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.P. Singh & Co. [P] Ltd 340 ITR 217 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to decide on the fact that once the share application money is treated as an undisclosed income of the assessee us 68 of the Act, whether the initiation of proceedings u/s 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act is valid? 23. On these facts, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "6. Mr. Kochar, learned cou…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Bapu Reddy Jala, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 153ASection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

…e time seek to initiate proceedings against the appellant for violation of the provisions of Section 26955 of the Act by treating it as was 'specified sum'? This question answered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi CIT VS. R.P. Singh and Co., Put. Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 217 (pel). The relevant extract of the ratio is. reproduced below: "5. M. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, has referred to substantial question of law to be question (a) as arising which emerges for consideration in this appeal. The said question reads as under: "Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on the…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)
Section 269S

…income in the hands of the assessed, it could not resort to proceedings under section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal." [6] 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.P. Singh & Co. [P] Ltd 340 ITR 217 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to decide on the fact that once the share application money is treated as an undisclosed income of the assessee us 68 of the Act, whether the initiation of proceedings us 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act is valid? 23. On these facts, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "6. Mr. Kochar, learned couns…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aman Sharma

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/100/2022HC Punjab & Haryana31 Jan 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 132Section 153Section 260Section 269SSection 271D

…proceedings under Section 269SS read with Section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal. Reference at this stage can further be made to judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.P. Singh and Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2012 340 ITR 217 wherein the appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the operative para of the judgment reads as under:- “Mr. Kochhar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the said question does not arise in the case at hand inasmuch as both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding that once…

M/S. Madhuvan Corporation, Vadodara vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271D

…ounted income of the assessee to which the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Delhi). 2. CIT vs. R.P. Singh & Co. (P.) Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 217 (Delhi). 3. DCIT vs. G.S. Entertainment [2007] 109 TTJ 54 (Mumbai). 9. Ld. D.R. on the other hand heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). I.T.A No. 1072/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 7 M/s. Madhuvan Corporation vs. Addl. CIT 10. We have heard both the parties carefully and have also gone through the orders of the authorities below. The i…

Code Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Range 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 622/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, B-204, Sai Sangam, Plot No. 85, Sector 152, Cbd Belapur, Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. Gajarathi &For Respondent: Shri A. M. Mittal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 43B

…e stood doubted. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance on the following case laws: 5 Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. • CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 (Del); • Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT 246 ITR 571 (Del); • CIT vs. R. P. Singh Co. (P.) Ltd. 340 ITR 217 (Del) 5. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR', for short) has strongly supported the impugned order, contending that as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A), it does not lie in the mouth of the assessee to contend that non exclusion of the amount of Rs.1,14,50,000/- from the total income of the assessee, amounts to holding…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 805/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 132Section 239TSection 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 68

…y of penalty u/s 271E of the Act in respect of the same amount which had been taxed by treating the same as business income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.B. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 217 (Del.). The ld. CIT (A) had incorporated the submissions of the assessee in para 6.2 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition, the same is not reproduced herein. Ld. CIT (A) also forwarded the submissions of the assessee to the AO for his remand report and the AO in his remand report dated 07.02.2013 stated as under :- “Show cause notice…