K.C. Builders v. ACIT

176 ITR 76High Court#7442 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing K.C. Builders v. ACIT

ANJANI AGRICO IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6171/MUM/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2000-01 Anjani Agrico Implements Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 302, Standard House, 83, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabca1949A

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. Since, the addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed remained no more in existence, the penalty will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, because, of its own, the penalty cannot stand on its legs when 12 addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence. Thus, we direct the Ld…

TATA MOTORS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO TATA FINANCE LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 1999-2000 Tata Motors Ltd. Acit-2(3) (Successor To Tata Finance Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ltd.), Bombay House, 24, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaact2727Q

Section 271(1)(c)

…for the assessee. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum 6 Tata Motors Ltd. (Successor to Tata Finance Ltd.) addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, because, of its own, the penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed rema…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…remains no more remained in existence, therefore, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existenc…

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CHORON DIAMOND (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4449/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Amenity Software Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Ward-8(1)(1), बनाम/ 37/40, Subhash Road, Mumbai Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No.Aaeca7051J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…s initiated/confirmed. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was 5 M/s Amenity Software Pvt. Ltd. imposed remains no more in existence, thus, the appeal…

PRAKASH P. MALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 4(4), RANGE -4,, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 2181/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 88

…. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Mr. Prakash P. Mali Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the…

AMENITY SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4449/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

NIMESH N.KAMPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3559/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Nimesh N. Kampani Dcit-4(3), बनाम/ 141, 14Th Floor, Maker 6Th Floor, Chambers Iii, Jamnalal Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaack3436F यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Parikh याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…factual matrix, the proportionate penalty imposed with respect to legal expenses of Rs.40,72,750/- is directed to be deleted. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs 7 Nimesh N. Kampani when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence. 3. So far as, the remaining…

SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

ITA 6541/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…Ld. Assessing Officer. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 ITA No.6541 to 6546/Mum/2012 17 Smt. Sumanlata Bansal (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existe…

SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 7103/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A

…s initiated/confirmed. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the…

MANJULAL M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 1953/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292

…re us is also 2007-08. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when 6 Smt. Manjula M. Gandhi ITA Nos.1953/Mum/2014 the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence,…

ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. COSMOS BRAND DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4716/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3) M/S. Cosmos Brand Room No. 601A Distributors Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 7Th Level, Aryston Centre Vs. Mumbai 400020 Opp. J.W. Marriott Hotel Juhu Road, Juhu Mumbai 400049 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabcc6856G

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…this Tribunal. 3.1 Under the facts narrated herein above, I am of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. My view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, I upheld the stand of the 4 M/s. Cosmos Brand…

RANJEET BEDI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2002-03 Shri Rajneet Bedi, Ito, Jeeva Bungalow, Ward-16(1)(3), बनाम/ 14, Silver Beach Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. A.B. Nair Road, Juhu M.K. Road, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpb5001D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Suresh Mukatam Shri Shrikant Namdev-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…s initiated/confirmed. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the…

ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. DAMANIA & SONS, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 5120/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-17(2), M/S Damania & Sons, R.No.217, 2Nd Floor, Jame Jamshed Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Matunga, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400019 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacfd0045J Shri Rakesh Ranjan Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Milin Dattani

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(b)

…was levied/confirmed. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld.…

POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita Nos.1655 To 1657/Mum/2015 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2005-06 M/S Polygenta Technologies Acit-4(3) Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ Solitaire Corporate Bank, Vs. Building No.1, 6Th Floor, Unit Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aaacm7390Q

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…initiated/confirmed. In view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Our view find support from the decision in K.C. Builders vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) and the ratio laid down in CIT vs S.P. Viz, 176 ITR 76 (Patna). Even otherwise, when the quantum addition is deleted, there M/S Polygenta Technologies Ltd. remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty cannot stand on its legs when addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed remains no more in existence, thus, all the ap…