Impulse India (p.) Ltd. v. ITO

40 ITD 36Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#11622 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Also reported as

31 TTJ 550

Judgments citing Impulse India (p.) Ltd. v. ITO

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. The JCIT, R-5 (Present AO: DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 961/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 753/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 752/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT-2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 293/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The Addl. CIT- Range-5, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 484/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 754/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 404/IND/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s relating to income. If at all there is any concealment, it can be only of fact and it cannot be of law. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76)…

Pennozil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7503/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…-08 is erroneous on merits. (IV) No penalty can be levied as the issue is highly debatable and at the very least two views are possible in the matter. Case laws:  American Express Bank Ltd. v. DDIT [2010-TII-134-ITAT-Mum-INTL]  Impulse India (P) Ltd v. ITO [40 ITD 36 (Delhi ITAT)] For these case laws refer Compilation No.4 (V) Penalty should not leviable in cases where the tax rates are the same in different years or the issue involved relates to a timing difference. There is no justification for levy of penalty as the effect of change in stock valuation is tax neutral inter alia. (i) The reduction in the value…

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7386/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…-08 is erroneous on merits. (IV) No penalty can be levied as the issue is highly debatable and at the very least two views are possible in the matter. Case laws:  American Express Bank Ltd. v. DDIT [2010-TII-134-ITAT-Mum-INTL]  Impulse India (P) Ltd v. ITO [40 ITD 36 (Delhi ITAT)] For these case laws refer Compilation No.4 (V) Penalty should not leviable in cases where the tax rates are the same in different years or the issue involved relates to a timing difference. There is no justification for levy of penalty as the effect of change in stock valuation is tax neutral inter alia. (i) The reduction in the value…

Impulse India (p.) Ltd. v. ITO (40 ITD 36) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax