HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (

274 ITR 603High Court2005#5485 most cited

What is HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT ( authority for?

An inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be treated as a case of giving inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of imposing penalty.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT · penalty u/s 270A · section 270 · section 274 · inaccurate claim · inaccurate particulars of income · levy of penalty · section 271 · section 143(1) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270AASection 271AAB

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 270asection 270section 274section 270alevy of penaltysection 27section 271section 143(1)section 250total incomesection 143(3)nfac

Judgments citing HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…ir CA/counsel for claiming such indirect expenditure during the year under consideration and hence, no penalty could be levied for making a bona fide claim by relying on the advice of professionals, for which reliance is placed on the following case laws: >- 274 ITR 603, CIT vs. Deep Tours P Ltd. ( P &H High Court) > -118 ITR 507, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Supreme Court. > -136 ITR 729, CIT vs. Ramniklal D. Mehta (Orissa H.C.) >- 3 ITD (Madras) 221, WTO vs. S. P. Jayakumar 25) Moreover, the issue was only about the year of allowability of such indirect expenditure and as the r…