IT (2001) 249 ITR 124/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT (265 ITR 82)

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)

…eyes of law as held by the following catena of 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 gro…

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)

…gs 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 Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Budge Budge Co…

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)

…eyes of law as held by the following catena of 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 gro…

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

…law and reliance can be placed on the following 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…

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

ITA 7900/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

…vs. Rajan and Co. (No. 1) [2007] 291 ITR 340 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 337 (Delhi), CIT vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 32 (Delhi), CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Delhi), CIT vs. Super Metal Re-rollers 265 ITR 82 (Delhi), Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT [2006] 285 ITR (AT) 112 (Delhi) in support of the view taken by us in the foregoing paragraph no. 5 of this order. In the case of CIT vs. Rajan and Co. Page 9 of 14 ITA No.- 7900/Del/2018 and SA No.- 62/Del/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.- 7900/Del/2018) (No. 1)(supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSMENT 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: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 07.09.2018 of CIT (Appeals) -29, New Delhi pe…