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

246 ITR 571High Court2000#2165 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.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 269ssection 269sssection 271dsection 269furnishing inaccurate particularssection 271levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 26section 27section 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

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ny doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the ITG must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. See CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) and Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 324 : (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del). 47. It is furthermore of some significance that the CIT(A} in his order dated 30th Nov., 2000 made a terse comment that the assessee cannot shift the burden of concealment to any other person, meaning thereby, the registered valuer. He, furthermore, made a comment that the registered valuer had adopted a strange way of valuing although no…

DCIT CC 1, Mumbai vs. Sanju Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…unt in question is treated as income, it cannot again be treated as loan for the purpose of initiating penalty proceeding under section 271D. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Diwan Enterprise v/s CIT, [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Del.). Learned A.R. submitted, imposition of penalty under section 271D is not automatic as it has to be r/w section 273B. He submitted, unless the transaction in cash is found to be not bonafied, penalty under section 271D cannot be imposed. He submitted, in terms of section 273B, if assessee shows reasonable cause for not imposing penalty, the…

M/S. Spacevision Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 773/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. & Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Spacevision Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Ca Circle-9(1) 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj New Delhi New Delhi Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. and Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Spacevision Impex (P) Ltd. VS DCIT C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA Circle-9(1) 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj New Delhi New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No. AAICS0922Q Appellant by: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of final hearing : 03.02.2016 Date of pronouncement : 24.02.2016 ORDER Per C.M. Garg, JM 1. This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) –XI, New Delhi order dat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2627/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…(b) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 4 The hon'ble apex court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 as follows (page 546) : "The term 'inaccurate particu…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. T.D.T. Copper Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2411/DEL/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2000-01 Acit, Circle-16(1), Vs. M/S T.D.T. Copper Ltd, New Delhi 7-Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (Pan:Aaact1028N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Satyajit, Ca Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Arise Out Of The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In Ita No. 1242 Of 2008, Dated 14Th December, 2009 Whereby The Earlier Order Of This Tribunal Dated 17Th January, 2008 Was Set Aside. The Revenue Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi, Dated 21St April, 2006 For The Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2000-01 On 29.11.2000, Disclosing A Loss Of Rs. 11,97,57,110/-. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & The Assessment Came To Be Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Satyajit, CA
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…(b) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 6. In the light of the above legal proposition, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and thus sustain the same. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Makino Asia Pvt Ltd

ITA/340/2007HC Karnataka25 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260Section 271(1)(c)Section 72

…ars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income-tax Officer must arrive at his satisfaction in this behalf. (See CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi). The order imposing penalty is quasi- criminal in nature and, thus, the burden lies on the Department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since the 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 ca…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bpl Sanyo Finance Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…lars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income-tax Officer must arrive at his satisfaction in this behalf. (See CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi). The order imposing penalty is quasi- criminal in nature and, thus, the burden lies on the Department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since the 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 ca…

Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals Vijayawada vs. The Comi.of Incometax Vij

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

ITTA/31/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: :Sri AV KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri J.V.Prasad
Section 133Section 143Section 260Section 271

…anding Counsel for the respondent : Sri J.V.Prasad. ? Cases referred: [1] (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 2 (2010) 335TR 259 (Delhi) 3 (2008) 300 ITR 40 (AP) 4 (2003) 263 ITR 484 (P & H) 5 (2005) 277 ITR 337 (Delhi) 6 (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) 7 (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) 8 (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Delhi) (FB) 9 (2008) 307 ITR 147 (Delhi) 10 (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 11 (2000)241 ITR 124 (MP) 12(2001)251 ITR 009 (SC) 13(2010)291ITR 519 (SC) 14AIR 1973 S.C. 22 15(2008)306 ITR 277 (SC) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A.Nos.29, 31 & 33 of 2000 COMMON J…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virgo Marketing P.Ltd

ITA - 1345 / 2007HC Delhi25 Jan 2008
Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 ('the Act') is whether the Assessing Officer had recorded a valid satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - this Court has taken the view in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She also accepted the fact that the view taken by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [200…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Frontiline Solutions Baroda Ltd

ITA - 1299 / 2007HC Delhi23 Jan 2008
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…on 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is whether the Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - 3. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) it has been held that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax,…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virgo Marketing P.Limited

ITA - 1332 / 2007HC Delhi23 Jan 2008
Section 234BSection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1961 ('the Act') is whether the Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - this Court has taken the view in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She also accepted the fact that the view taken by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [200…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2746 of 2007 PETITIONER: Dilip N. Shroff RESPONDENT: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/05/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2746 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.26831 of 2004] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It is an HUF. For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs.30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term ca…

Sri T. Ashok Pai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2747 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sri T. Ashok Pai RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/05/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2747 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1194 of 2006) S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment dated 29.9.2005, passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ITRC No.492 of 1998 whereby and whereunder answer to the follo…