Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

265 ITR 25High Court2004#660 most cited

What is Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed upon an assessee's failure to contest a quantum addition or if two views are possible; the Assessing Officer must prove the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, an Assessing Officer can disallow a claim during assessment if it is patently false on examination of facts.

151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT · penalty section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty not automatic · burden of proof Assessing Officer · two views possible penalty · disallowance of false claim · assessment procedure · 265 ITR 25 · 130 Taxmann 553

Also reported as

130 Taxmann 553

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 131(1A)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 153a(1)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)advance taxpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssearch assessmentsection 132aprincipal commissioner of income-taxloose papers

Judgments citing Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

Deepak B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6066/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI Before Shri C N Prasad, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah ACIT 16(2) 61-A, 6th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. PAN AACPS0199L (Appellant) Respondent) ITA Nos.6067 & 6068/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Kunal N Shah, ACIT 16(2) 501, Gitanjali Garden, Mumbai Vs. 68E, Nepean Sea road, Rungata Lane, Mumbai 400 006 (Appellant) Respondent) Appellants By : Shri Roshan Shah Respondent By : Ms Neha…

Deepak B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6065/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI Before Shri C N Prasad, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah ACIT 16(2) 61-A, 6th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. PAN AACPS0199L (Appellant) Respondent) ITA Nos.6067 & 6068/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Kunal N Shah, ACIT 16(2) 501, Gitanjali Garden, Mumbai Vs. 68E, Nepean Sea road, Rungata Lane, Mumbai 400 006 (Appellant) Respondent) Appellants By : Shri Roshan Shah Respondent By : Ms Neha…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. The JCIT, R-5 (Present AO: DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 961/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 753/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 752/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT-2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 293/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The Addl. CIT- Range-5, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 484/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 754/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 404/IND/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient to subject the assessee to penalty on the ground that the particulars given by the assessee were incorrect. 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) 5. 5. Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (265 ITR 25) (Car.) It was held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. 6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (…

Ajit Singh Bagga, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 68

…y audited. Further, the mere fact that the addition has been accepted or is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be a conclusive finding for imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan reported in (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. In the instan…

Arvind Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)

…d or is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be a conclusive Page 4 of 6 ITA 81/Del/2015 A.Y.:2008-09 Sh. Arvind Kumar vs. ITO finding for imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan reported in (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. In the instan…

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 694/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K Pradhan, Am M/S Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, C.C 46, R.No. 659, बिधम/ Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 055. Mumbai – 400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabch7898H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal the A.O dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived a t b y the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills (265 ITR 25) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: “When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be dawn, in a penalty proceeding penalty cannot be imposed.…in quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of pe…

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC (46), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 73/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.73/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-46, बनाम/ Room No.659, 6Th Floor, Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 055 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfm 0809 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 14.05.2013 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Issue Raised By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Amounting To Rs.25,11,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Concerns Were Floated & Run By Shri Mukesh Choksi. After Search & Seizure Action, The Concern Was Held To Be The 2 M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Accommodation Entry Provider. The Assessing Officer Rejected The Books Of Account

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan

…ITA Nos.7564/Mum/2014, 7566-7570/Mum/2014) 3. M/s. Wavecom Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs. (in ITA No.685/Mum/2015 & Ors.) 6. He submitted that the tribunal had referred to Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) for the following proposition: 3 M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceeding, penalty cannot be imposed…….. In quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted to the income of the assessee. But when it came to the qu…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 400/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)
Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…nder challenge; the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Ashwani Kalia, not pressing Grounds 1 and 7 of the Appeal, making an endorsement to that effect thereon. The next argument advanced before us, placing reliance on the decision in CIT vs. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (P&H), is that the assessment is bad in law 3 ITA Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015(A.Y.2007-08&09-10) Horizon Builders & Developers v. ACIT as neither section 69 nor sec. 69A is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble High Court had in that case held that section 69A cannot be invoked unless the assessee is found to be in posses…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 399/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)
Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…nder challenge; the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Ashwani Kalia, not pressing Grounds 1 and 7 of the Appeal, making an endorsement to that effect thereon. The next argument advanced before us, placing reliance on the decision in CIT vs. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (P&H), is that the assessment is bad in law 3 ITA Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015(A.Y.2007-08&09-10) Horizon Builders & Developers v. ACIT as neither section 69 nor sec. 69A is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble High Court had in that case held that section 69A cannot be invoked unless the assessee is found to be in posses…

Ctc Plaza International Tradex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4900/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e addition and did not challenge it further. But the mere fact that an addition has-been accepted or is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CTT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 5. It is noticed that…

Sri Surya Prakash Bagla, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir-VII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

…ioned transaction. Hence there could be no penalty on the same u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. In this regard, the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal) is very well founded. It was held in that case as under:- 2. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Counsel for the assessee, has pressed three contentions for our consideration. First, the amount shown in the opening balance of the next previous year can be treated to be an income for the next previous year. Though it could be treated as income of the…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…" CIT Vs Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. 332 ITR 468 (P&H) " CIT Vs Dolphin Builders (P.) Ltd. 356 ITR 420 (MP) " ACIT Vs Sharad Chaudhary 165 TTJ 145 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) " ITO Vs Twinkle Papers (P.) Ltd. 95 TTJ 987 (Chd. Trib.) (TM) 17. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the AO made a reference to the concerned authority vide letter dated 27.11.2012 for obtaining the information under DTAA. Therefore, the limitation as per the…

Nadir A Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 4859/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4Section 44ASection 45

…/10 & 4859.M.12 A.Y. 2005-06 No.5711/M/2012 dated 28th February, 2014). It is also argued that in the present facts and circumstances there are two possible views, therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) and CIT Vs. Raj Overseas 336 ITR 261 (P&H). It is also argued that if the claim is not correct then the same cannot be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). However, on the other hand learned representative of the departmen…

Nadir A. Modi, Mumbai vs. Jt.CIT-11(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 2996/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4Section 44ASection 45

…/10 & 4859.M.12 A.Y. 2005-06 No.5711/M/2012 dated 28th February, 2014). It is also argued that in the present facts and circumstances there are two possible views, therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) and CIT Vs. Raj Overseas 336 ITR 261 (P&H). It is also argued that if the claim is not correct then the same cannot be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). However, on the other hand learned representative of the departmen…