(i) CIT v. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation

274 ITR 640Reported decision#13957 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GGC Section 120 Section 127

Issues it is cited on

section 147 nfac person

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation

SUCHISMITA DHAL,ODISHA vs. ITO 1 KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.16 & 17/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2019-20 Suchismita Dhal Co Saraj Kanta Dhal, Block Chowk, Behind Lic Office, Sonepur Raj Sonepur, Balangir (Odisha)-767017 Pan: Aorpd4399C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 80G

…old that since quantum addition have been deleted, the penalty shall not have any legal sustainability. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported as 322 ITR 622 that when the entire addition had been deleted 6 Suchismita Dhal Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA Nos. 16 & 17/RPR/2025 in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. Hence, the penalty order is quashed. 10. As per the afore…

SUCHISMITA DHAL,ODISHA vs. ITO 1 KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 80G

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282A(1)

…old that since quantum addition have been deleted, the penalty shall not have any legal sustainability. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported as 322 ITR 622 that when the entire addition had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. 6. As per the aforesaid terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the ass…

BHAN BAI, BHILAI,DURG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. No.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ayrpb7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.124/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. NO.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) PAN: AYRPB7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco(India) Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…ssment year 2003- 04. Since quantum itself has been deleted by the Tribunal, there is no justification for imposing penalty as per the binding judgments of the Hon‟ble High Courts which are as follows: (i) CIT Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. (ii) CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. reported as 322 ITR 622 by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The legal proposition from these judgments is that when the entire addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. 3 A.Y.2004-05 4. In view of the matter and j…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

…eal is dismissed.” In view of the above, we observe since the quantum has been deleted, there is no justification in sustaining the penalty. Further, we find the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported in 274 ITR 640 and Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported in 322 ITR 622 has held that when the entire additions had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. Thus, we sustain the deletion of penalty from the hands of assessee on this issue, Thus, ground No.1 of Revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I,,, PUNE vs. FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 839/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.839/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation-1), Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Plot No. T-187, Pimpri Industrial Area ( B.G Block), Behind Bhosari Police Station, Bhosari, Pune-411 026. Pan: Aabcf6351K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Padmaja Likhite & Ms. Payal GangFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Malviya

Section 271(1)(c)

…had deleted the penalty with regard to the IT support services. Thereafter, following the said order, quantum was deleted for assessment year 2012-13. We find the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported in 274 ITR 640 and Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd reported in 322 ITR 622 has held that when the entire additions had been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty. In view of the above referred judgments and on examination of facts on record, relief provided to the assessee…