(iii) Enfield Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

107 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#21912 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2021.

Also reported as

13 SOT 28

Judgments citing (iii) Enfield Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…these facts deleted the penalty — (ii) Smt. Bitoli Devi Vs. ACIT(2007), 110 TTJ (Luck) 735 (Unless any positive concealment is found no penalty is leviable on basis of addition made on estimate) (iii) Enfield Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2007) 13 SOT 28 (URO)/107 ITD 1 (Kol.) (Onus would lie heavily with Department to prove concealment for purpose of imposing penalty under section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi) The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presente…

Shri Harish Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 970/JPR/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR

Section 271(1)

…these facts deleted the penalty — (ii) Smt. Bitoli Devi Vs. ACIT(2007), 110 TTJ (Luck) 735 (Unless any positive concealment is found no penalty is leviable on basis of addition made on estimate) (iii) Enfield Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2007) 13 SOT 28 (URO)/107 ITD 1 (Kol.) (Onus would lie heavily with Department to prove concealment for purpose of imposing penalty under section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi):- The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that present…

Shri Vishnu Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 965/JPR/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR

Section 271(1)

…these facts deleted the penalty — (ii) Smt. Bitoli Devi Vs. ACIT(2007), 110 TTJ (Luck) 735 (Unless any positive concealment is found no penalty is leviable on basis of addition made on estimate) (iii) Enfield Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2007) 13 SOT 28 (URO)/107 ITD 1 (Kol.) (Onus would lie heavily with Department to prove concealment for purpose of imposing penalty under section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi):- The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that present…