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

D.C.I.T CC - Xx, Kolkata. vs. M/S Paharpur Colling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2012[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri NavinVerma, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…. The Hon'ble Court further observed that in order to justify the levy of penalty the circumstances must show that the assessee was having an intention to conceal the income and to evade the payment of tax. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 the Hon’blejurisdictional High Court has been held that when two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. In the said case it was also held that, in quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But, wh…

Narayan Heights & Towers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…made willful attempt to conceal the income and furnish the inaccurate particular of income. He submitted that there must be an independent finding to this effect as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25(Cal.). 4.1. He submitted that in the assessment order the assessing officer made two additions one of Rs. 61,09,482/- applying the provisions of section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, the other is of Rs. 49,11,349/- on account of short-term capital gain on land acquired by the NHAI these additions made represent to assessed income but not concea…

ACIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wockchardt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1397/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi -ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunita Billa-DR
Section 235ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “जी मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1397/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1398/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-14(3)(1), M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. 453, Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor Wockhardt Tower M.K…

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

ITA 7534/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7534/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7536/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7537/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabch 7898 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 31/10/2014 Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Ay.S.The Only Issue In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.As The Appeals Deal With The Same Issue,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience Same Are Being Decided By A Single Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…alty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC (46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 74/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Goldstar Finvest P Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd, Tax, Cc(46), फनधभ/ 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Room No.659, 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400055 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabcg3811B (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Chokshi In Person प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Ms.Anju Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Chokshi in personFor Respondent: Ms.Anju Garodia
Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Sh. Arun Duggal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 740/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07 Arun Duggal, Vs. Dcit, C/O Shriram Capital, Circle-31(1), 709, 7Th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aejpd7754D Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan Pandey, Ca Deptt. By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan Pandey, CA
Section 271(1)(c)

…cash credits, the explanation tendered by the assessee must be disproved. Deleting the penalty so imposed, the Hon’ble High court held that it was not a case of imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), relying on National Textiles 249 ITR 125 (Guj), has held that there is a difference in `Facts not proved' and `Facts disproved'. It further held that penalty can be levied only for the latter. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Vidyagauri Natvarlal & Ors (1999) 153 CTR (Guj) 546. 6. In the light of the foregoing precedents, we are s…

Sh. Praveen Kumar Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6480/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…enalty and that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. In the said decision the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kanal Rice Mills Vs. CIT 2004 265 ITR 25 (Cal) wherein it has been held that 3 quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings as well as one more case of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P. K. Narayan 1999 238 ITR 905 (Kerala) wherein it was held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Trib…

Jayesh K Sampat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1003/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Choksi – CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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 impositio…

Jayesh K Sampat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1000/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Choksi – CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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 impositio…

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha - DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 698/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha - DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7563/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Private Limited, Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aadca 9890L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…lty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Kaycee Shares Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Kaycee Shares Broking Pvt. Ltd. Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aacck 7839A ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…lty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7570/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7569/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7568/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7567/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7566/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Goldstar Finvest P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 7564/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. O.P. Meena
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…y for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…

Mukesh Choksi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC (46), Mumbai

ITA 996/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh finding arrived at by 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 drawn, 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…