Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT

302 ITR 43High Court2008#17596 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT

Steelfab Bldg System, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 6509/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathasteelfab Building System Vs. Acit-31(3) 1St Floor, C-13 Building 101-A, Poonam Chambers B 7Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaxfs5995B (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…year and also fact that when, refund advise was issued to the assessee, there is no breakup, in respect of refund of taxes and interest. In this regard, he relied upon by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court, in the case of CIT vs SSP Pvt.Ltd. 302 ITR 43 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assesee has deliberately concealed particulars of income, in respect of interest received on income tax refund and hence, the Ld. AO, as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were right in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 5 Steelfab Building System…

Manpreet Singh Bhullar, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…and is not covered under the concealment of particulars of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee, hence, provisions of section 271(1)(c) does not comes into play. 4. Reliance is placed on : In CIT Vs. SSP (P) Ltd., (2008) 302 ITR 43 (Punjab & Haryana) : Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Bona fide belief—Where the assessee does not include a particular item in the taxable turnover or claims a deduction under bona fide belief that he is not liable so as to include the same, or entitled to deduction, it would not be right to treat the return as a false return inviting impos…

ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai vs. Mudra Lifestyle Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Dharamesh Shah -ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271A

…eeraj Jindal [293 CTR 298] (xi) Sri KiranShah versus ACIT in ITANo.5919/M/2011,08.01.2014, (xii) DCIT versus Purti Shankar Karkhara [ 23 ITR (T) 667], (xiii) Sh. Dinesh Khanna versus DCIT, ITA No. 4200-4205/M/2010 dated 29 July 2015, (xiv) CIT versus SSP Ltd [302 ITR 43](Punjab and Haryana) and (xv) PMS Diesels versus DCIT [260/Asr/ 2013 dated 31.12. 2016. 5. We have considered the level contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer while passing assessment order has not specified as to why the penalty proceeding under section 271 AAA is being initiated aga…

M/S Asphalt India Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 2530/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…esentative pointed out that under identical situation, the Tribunal held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is exigible. On this aspect, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of SSP P. Ltd., 302 ITR 43 (P&H) wherein also, under similar circumstances, deletion of penalty by the Tribunal has been affirmed. In further support of his argument, the learned representative placed reliance on the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. PMS Diesels in ITA No. 260/Asr/2013 dated 10.2.2016 wherein also, under similar circumstance…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…iculars relating to computation of income were disclosed, the cancellation of penalty under section 271 (1)( C) was held to be justified. Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 {P&H) and CIT Vs SSP P. Ltd (2008) 302 ITR 43 (P&H). 7 ITA No.290/Del./2014 The Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd Vs Asst. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 has held that unless the filing of an inaccurate return is accompanied by a guilty mind, penalty could not be imposed. It has been further held that the return could not be "false" unless there is an element of delibera…