Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax (246 ITR 571), spanning 2007 to 2025.

246 ITR 571High Court2000#2184 most cited

What is Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring the department to independently establish concealment and not automatically relying on assessment findings. A penalty under Section 271D or 271E for violating Section 269SS cannot be levied if the alleged loan amount is subsequently disclosed as income, as the foundation for the penalty is then lost.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Diwan Enterprises v CIT · Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. · penalty proceedings · Section 271D · Section 271E · Section 269SS · undisclosed income · reasonable cause · burden of proof penalty · concealed income penalty · Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 269s section 269ss section 271d section 269 furnishing inaccurate particulars section 271 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 26 section 27 section 271(1)(c)undisclosed income

Judgments citing Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income-tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi), 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus. burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automati…

KHAJA MAZHARUDDIN AHMED ANSARI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 733/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.733/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Khaja Mazharuddin Vs. Income Tax Officer Ahmed Ansari Ward 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Amxpa9201A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh Babu, DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

…Mazharuddin Ahmed Ansari Officer has treated the said amount as income of the appellant u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT reported in (2000) 246 ITR 571. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that there is a clear violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 in accepting loan, in excess of the prescribed limit, in cash and thus, the learned CIT (A) has rightly upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and their or…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…decisions :- i) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125. ii) National Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 124. iii) Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311. vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 10. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy and illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.59,00,884/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed.” 11. Since th…

DCIT CENTRAL 2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI RAJU PERUMAL, BHOPAL

ITA 998/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A No. 997 & 998/Ind/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-2 Shri Raju Perumal, Bhopal Siddhartha Mount View बनाम/ Villas, Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Abzpp 3789 P Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 / 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…e (wherein assessee is a partner) has disclosed the very same amount as undisclosed income of the firm out of which impunged cash was withdrawn, so the same amount should not have been treated as loan. It has been held in the case of Diwan Enterprises v/s CIT 246 ITR 571 (Del) that amount having ceased to be a loan because disclosed as income, the very foundation for imitating penalty proceedings for levying penalty is lost. [x] I find significant force in the contention of the appellant that assessee could be under genuine impression that advancing of money or withdrawal from firm by a partner is not a transfer…

DCIT CENTRAL 2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI RAJU PERUMAL, BHOPAL

ITA 997/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

…come to a prima facie satisfaction that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act are required to be initiated in the facts of the present case. 2.15. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT: 246 ITR 571 (Del) • CIT v. Super Metal Re- rollers (P) Ltd.: 265 ITR 82 (Del) • CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.: 246 ITR 568 (Del) • CIT vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd.: 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (FB) 9 | P a g e • Dr Sita Bhagi v. ACIT in ITANos.l286/Del/2017 (Del. Tri.) 2.16. Kind attention, in this regard, is further invited to the decision of the Kolkat…

RAM SINGH,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1457/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Ram Singh, Vs. Addl. CIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Range Karnal Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AZQPS7536M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Commissio…

RAMAN CHAUDHARY,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Raman Chaudhary, Vs. ACIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Special Range, Urban Estate, Karnal, Karnal Haryana PAN :AFOPC1631G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned…

GURMEET KAUR KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 45(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

ITA 3282/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27iSection 68Section 80C

…r Kalra 6 any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]” 8.1 Further, in CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particul…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…e find no reason to take a different view as we find that the reasons of the CIT(A), as observed by the Tribunal, justifies a case of undisclosed income at the hands of the assessee subject to tax under 68 of the Act." Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT & Ors. (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del) (HC) Para 22 of the decision reads as under: "22. The record of the proceedings shows that the AO had discarded the theory of the assessee having taken any loan. He accepted the surrender of the amount as income of the assessee. It was open to the AO not to accept the surrender, treat the amount as loan and then petitioner liable to penalty…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

…is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571] … … … 48. Primary burden of proof, therefore, is on the revenue. The statute requires satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discha…

BAFNA JANGADA CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 452/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80I

…g decisions : i) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125. ii) National Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 124 iii) Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311 vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 11. On perusal of the assessment order, it would clearly suggests that it is a case of mere disallowance of claim made which does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor is it false claim, as the assessee…

M/S B AND B INFRATECH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karuppusamy, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2005-06 M/s B and B Infratech Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, No.17, Shas Sultan, 4th Floor, Ward-1(1)(3), Ali Askar Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 052. PAN – AAACR 6295 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T Srinivasa, C.A Respondent by : Shri Karuppusamy, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 19.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

CODE ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL RANGE 8, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, B-204, Sai Sangam, Plot No. 85, Sector 152, Cbd Belapur, Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. Gajarathi &For Respondent: Shri A. M. Mittal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 43B

…neness of the loan taken by the assessee company nowhere stood doubted. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance on the following case laws: 5 Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. • CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 (Del); • Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT 246 ITR 571 (Del); • CIT vs. R. P. Singh Co. (P.) Ltd. 340 ITR 217 (Del) 5. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR', for short) has strongly supported the impugned order, contending that as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A), it does not lie in the mouth of the assessee to contend that non exclusion of the amount of Rs.1,14,50,000/- fro…

STUDIO DIGITAL PRINTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 299/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailesh Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143Section 158BSection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271FSection 68

…00/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and thereby treated the same as income of the assessee, the same cannot be treated as loan and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT – (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. – (2006) 155 taxman 383 (Delhi). However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO and ld. CIT (A). 7. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning findings as un…

TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Trilok Chand Chaudhary Vs Acit 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, Central Circle -26 New Delhi-110030 New Delhi Pan : Aaepc0683P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Pranshu Goel, Ca Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2018 Order Per Diva Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Sh.Pranshu Goel, CA

Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…income or deliberately furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the initiation of penalty proceedings will be without jurisdiction" The aforesaid principle is reiterated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases as under: • Diwan Enterprises 246 ITR 571 (Del) • Vikas Promoters 277 ITR 337 (Del) • Super Metal Rerollers 265 ITR 082 (Del) • Shree Bhagwant Fin Co 280 ITR 412 (Del) • Ranjan 8c co 291 ITR 340 (Del) • Manish Iron Store 263 ITR 484 (PH) • DhanjibhaiKanjibhai 189 ITR (Bom) • Rampur Engg. Co 309 ITR 143 (Del)(FB) It has been held in the following cases that recording of satisfactio…

SHRI NARENDRA SINGH BANA,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 528/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 528/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2007-08 Narendra Singh Bana, cuke I.T.O. Vs. M/s Narendra Automobiles, Jhalawar. Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jhalra-Patan, Jhalawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARPB 6621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Written Submissions jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date o…

LATE SHRI VAIDIANTHAN G. IYER,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…s beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically b…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/502/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and Diwan Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.502/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 8/18 Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi)). 17.2 The AO has not found the explanation furnished by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice to be false nor found to be not bona fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3