ITO v. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd.

7 SOT 181Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#2406 most cited

What is ITO v. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when there is a genuine difference of opinion on a point of law between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Such cases fall outside the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. · Roborant Investments · 7 SOT 181 · ITAT Mumbai · penalty under Section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) · genuine difference of opinion · matter of law · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing ITO v. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd.

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

….com 371 (Guj), Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 21 taxmann.com 8 (Del), CIT vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2015) 55 taxmann.com 406 (Bom), CIT v. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (2011) 196 Taxman 103 (P&H) (MAG) and ITO vs. Roborant Investments P. Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mum). The assessee has stated that penalty initiated in the present case is not maintainable, therefore, it is our humble request to kindly drop the same. 3.3 Reply of the assessee perused carefully but found not acceptable as the assessee did not receive any income from Devi Ansuiya Vidhya Sansthan in the year under consideration except reimburs…

SONALI D. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17 (3) ERSTWHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 12(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Delhi HC) CIT vs. Chandrasekaran [2015] 56 taxmann.com 210 (Kamataka) Bharat Tiles & Marble (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (Mumbai Trib.) dated 14.02.2018 Parinee Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd 7 SOT 181 (Mum ITAT) M/s Superb Royal Travels and Tours Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO - ITA No.: 4147/Mum/2012 DCIT vs. JMD Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 124ITD 223 (Delhi ITAT) Further, the Ld. A.R. submitted that no penalty is attracted under section 271(1)(c) for the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act as the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the annual a…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.ANTONY'S TIMBER DEP, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 294/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 274

…peace with the department and also with an understanding that the above acceptance should be considered positively while imposing penalties. A copy of the letter is enclosed as ready reference. 5. It has been held in ITO v Roborant investment Pvt. Ltd (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) that penalty cannot be levied in cases involving genuine difference of opinion on matters between the assesses and the Assessing Officer. Further, it has been held that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee since it does not amount to concealment of income withi…

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. RAM CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3225/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. R.L.B. DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3223/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHUBH CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3221/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(5),, SURAT vs. M/S. GANGOTRI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3219/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. BALAJI ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3218/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAI CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3210/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. ANJANI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3186/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. GOKULDHAM ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3177/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),,, SURAT vs. M/S. ASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3176/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

ITA 3175/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3047/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3025/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3024/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE INFRA, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2973/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AVANTIS ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2970/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2965/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty by invoking Expln. 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c). Milestone Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2961 to 65, 70, 71, 3024, 25 & 3047 of 2016…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

ITO v. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (7 SOT 181) — Cited in 48 Judgments | BharatTax