ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT v. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl

37 Taxmann.com 51High Court2013#10563 most cited

What is ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT v. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl authority for?

Penalty is leviable for deliberate deception in claiming deductions, even when cloaked as a bona fide claim. The object of section 271(1)(c) is to remedy loss of revenue.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

Also referred to as

Sharma Alloys India Ltd vs ITO · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for deception · bona fide claim · loss of revenue · deliberate deception

Judgments citing ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT v. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl

Heera Panna Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & I.T.A. No.572/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) फनाभ/ Heera Panna Chs Ltd, Income Tax Officer – Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, 16(2)(1), Vs. Mumbai – 400 026. Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacfh7760C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Bangar
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…In view of the above factual and legal analysis, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld AO and accordingly, confirm the act of imposition of penalty by the Ld AO especially keeping in view the following case laws:- i) Sharma Alloys (I) Ltd (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad.) – penalty leviable for deliberate deception of the claim. In the garb of bona fide claim the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty. The object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicates that this section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. ii) Salim Akhtar vs. ACIT (2013) Tax…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 936/CHNY/2014[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2015AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. K.Sundaraj, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 955/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. K.Sundaraj, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 954/CHNY/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 942/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 941/CHNY/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 940/CHNY/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 939/CHNY/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/CHNY/2014[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

K.Sundararaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/CHNY/2014[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 & 942 /Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals). He relied on the following judgments (1) CIT vs. Ramanujam Thampi, 233 ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl 37 Taxman.com 347 (Del) (4) Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs ITO 37 Taxmann.com 51 (Mad) In this assessee case, there was a search u/s.153A of the Act and notice was issued on 28.08.2006. Consequent to this, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at "4,04,370/- which included agricultural income of "1,84,550/-. While completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the…

ITR 521 (Ker) (2) A.M. Shah & Co vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) (3) CIT v. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl (37 Taxmann.com 51) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax