K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

265 ITR 562Supreme Court of India2004#362 most cited

What is K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT authority for?

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

241

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.C. Builders v. ACIT · 265 ITR 562 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · deletion of quantum addition · penalty not sustainable · penalty cancellation · basis for penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 43ASection 80IBSection 80IB(10)Section 11
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 271levy of penaltyincriminating materialsection 271(1)section 153section 153asection 15section 27section 143

Judgments citing K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

Rbj Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9530/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.- 9530/Del/2019 RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 9530/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., ITO, New Delhi. Vs. Ward-20(3), New Delhi. PAN No: AAECR0664G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short…

ITO-27(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Shree Harshad Jefellers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 27(3)(3) V. M/S. Shree Harshad Jewellers Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Shop No. 3, Kailash Mahal Vashi Railway Station Complex 60Feet Road, Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai - 400077 Pan: Aabfs2290R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Sanghavi Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…disallowance of Rs.28,30,051/- made by the AO.” 6. Since the addition made in the quantum proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, the Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders [265 ITR 562] deleted the penalty observing as under: - 4 M/s. Shree Harshad Jewellers “5. The facts of the case, the submission of the assessee and the arguments of the AR are carefully considered. In the case of the assessee, the entire addition made by the AO stands cancelled by the order of the ITAT. Since the addition on the basis of which the penalty h…

Genpact Infrastructure (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6588/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Senior DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…e order dated 03.11.2020 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) by holding that “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalties levied by the…

M/S Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha Charitable Trust (Regd.), Ludhiana vs. CIT(A)-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A Shri Aditya Kumar, C.A Shri Bhawesh Jindal, C.A Miss UdiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…was levied, is not in existence, therefore no penalty is leviable under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act in the assessee’s case. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs. Asst. CIT reported in 265 ITR 562. 11. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and strongly supported the same. 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the addition made by the A.O. as well a…

Sh. Aashish Arora, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-3(2), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 595/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 595/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ashish Arora The ITO बनाम Prop. M/s Shanti Knit Fab, Ward-3(2), Ludhiana 413, 4th Floor, K-10 Towr Feroze Gandhi Mrket, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADKPA1111B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate Shri Amandeep Saxena, CA राज"व क" ओ…

Subhash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (DCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’B’, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 205/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Shri Subhash Sharma The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 718, Meera Marg,, Income Tax, Circle-6, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGXPS 0784 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) & Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) jktL…

ACIT, Circle 16 (1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle – 16(1) V. 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Heman ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…Act has become final and need no interference.” 6. Since the addition made in the quantum proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, the Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders [265 ITR 562] deleted the penalty observing as under: - “Since the addition on which penalty was imposed by the Ld. AO is no more sustainable. 'In view of Hon'ble ITAT 'F' Bench judgement as discussed above therefore, no such penalty can be sustained. In support of its claim, appellant placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of KG Builders…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5855/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5854/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5853/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 7345/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 7344/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 7343/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…framed u/s 254/144 of the Act has been held to be void ab initio and ordered to be quashed, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders & Anr. vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC). Consequently, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 are ordered to be deleted. 40. Consequently, quantum appeals bearing ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del/2016 and penalty appeals bearing ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-08 respectively filed by the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as infructuous owing to the adjudication on merits of the case

ITA 747/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Vs M/S Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch5556J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Vs M/s Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH5556J CO No. 101/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Honda Trading Corporation Vs DCIT, India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, Circle-11(1), A-27, Infocity, Sector-34, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH5556J Assessee by : None Revenu…

Rajesh Ladhani, Faizabad vs. DCIT CC, Agra

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…he Assessment order dated 31.03.2015 passed under section 153A of the Act, which in view of our decision in ITA No. 106/Agra/2019 stands quashed and no more survives. Therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of K.C Builders Vs ACIT 265 ITR 562 (S.C) holding that where an order of assessment or reassessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been cancelled by the Tribunal, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the ITA No. 106,107 and 108/Agra/2019 22 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 same is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, consequential pe…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. A.Vinod Kumar Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1368/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Chny/2019 "नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…affirm/uphold decision of learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act against the assessee. The leaned CIT(A) rightly relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Builders v. ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562(SC) to hold in favour of assessee by deleting penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act . The Revenue fails in this appeal. We order accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no. 1368/Chny/2019 for ay: 2011-12 is dismissed as indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on this 5th November , 2019, in C…

Kunal Nikunj Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint CIT Range-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 4653/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kunal Nikunj Shah, 501, Joint Commissioner Of Gitanjali Garden, 68E, Napean Vs. Income Tax Range-16(2), Sea Road, Rungta Lane, Mumbai. Mumbai-400006 Pan No. Aacps8482N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Vissanji &For Respondent: Mr. V. Justin
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…penalty for concealment was levied are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be deleted. In the case of K.C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562, 569 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that where the additions made in the assessment orders on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. 4. In v…

Shree Radhey Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1762/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr
Section 153CSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.- 1762/Del/2017. Shree Radhey Technologies Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1762/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shree Radhey Technologies ACIT, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C. Circle-14, New Delhi. PAN No: AAHCS5469H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, CA Revenue by : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, New Delhi, [“Ld…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1531/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Assistant Commissioner of M/s Resurgere Mines and Income Tax, Vs. Minerals India Ltd., Circle- 21(2), 15, Morvi House, 28/30, New Delhi. Goa Street Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400038 PAN No: AAACE0111B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CA ORDER PER ANADEE NA…

DCIT, CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 1236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, M/S Ramesh Kumar & Co. Central Circle- 5(1), 50, 2Nd Floor, Swastik Plaza, Room No. 1928, Air India V.L. Mehta Road, Jvpd Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaafr1612D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 271Section 69C

…operative part of the order of the Ld.CIT (A) reads as under:- “6. It is evident from the order of the ITAT that the honorable ITAT has decided the appeal in favour of the appellant and deleted the addition. In the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT reported at 265 ITR 562/Taxman 461 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the quantum addition based on which the penalty is levied, is restored , penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) on the additions/ disallowance made does not sustain. In view Assessment Year: 2011-12 of the same, since the quantum addition made in the assessment order is deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT vi…