Kamy Software Solutions P. Ltd. (214 CTR 403) & in S.V. Kalyanam v. ITO

327 ITR 477High Court2010#14021 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Kamy Software Solutions P. Ltd. (214 CTR 403) & in S.V. Kalyanam v. ITO

Rama Paper Mills Ltd, Bijnore vs. DCIT Central Circle-01, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3802/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rama Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Najeebabad Road, Central Circle-01, Kiratpur, Kanpur. Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aabcr5686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Of The Cit(A), Moradabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs.9,27,000/-,Imposed By The Ao., Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 271 (1) ( C) Of It Act 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/-, Without Looking Into Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Relying On Irrelevant Judicial Pronouncements. 3. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principles Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 4. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Without Clearly Specifying The Charge I.E. Concealment Of Income "Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Any/All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Despite There Is No Concealment Of Income By The Appellant Nor Assessee Furnished In Inaccurate Particulars Of Income By The Appellant.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

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

…nt of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty may kindly be deleted. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works, 221 ITR 661 (Guj); (ii) S.K. Kalyan vs. ITO, 327 ITR 477 (Mad); 2 (iii) CIT vs. MTNL, 79 CCH 726-Delhi High Court; & (iv) Pfizer vs. DCIT, 146 TTJ 385 (Mum). 4. The ld. Counsel further pressing into service, the proposition of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works (supra) and submitted that even though the addition u/s 68 was made on admission of the assessee, the…

K.Krishnaraj, Pollachi vs. ITO Ward I, Pollachi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 723/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.723/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri K. Krishnaraj, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Door No.120 (Old No.82), Ward-1, Main Road, Kinathukadavu, Pollachi. Pollachi – 642 109. Pan: Ayapk6947J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshisundram, Itp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…lanations to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied is not sustainable and hence pleaded that the penalty levied may be deleted. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.V. Kalyanam vs. ITO (2010) 327 ITR 477 (Mad), wherein the court has held that Section 69 is a deeming provision and it cannot be extended to penalty proceedings and submitted the facts this case on all the fours with the case law rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. He further submitted that levy of penalty is not compulsory in all cases, where an addition may be confirmed. In t…

Sukhdev Dhillon, Kaithal vs. ITO, W-3, Kaithal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 144/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarsukhdev Dhillon Vs. The Ito S/O Shri. Jagir Singh Ward-3, Kaithal Vill-Bhagal, Kaithal

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…s the addition was made under section 69 and no separate enquiries were conducted nor any new material was brought on record for levy of penalty. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras high- court in the case of S.V Kalyanam Vs. Income-tax officer (2010) 327 ITR 477 (Mad.) wherein it was held that addition made u/s 69 rejecting the explanation of the assesses, section 69 is deeming provision and it cannot be extended to the penalty proceedings. The department could not presume that there was concealment. There must be an independent findings. Hon'ble Gujarat High-court in case of CIT v. Vinaychand Harilal (1…

Chandra Ramesh, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 273/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…ence claimed the same. In spite of pointing out the facts and the ratios, the Ld. CIT(A) unfortunately confirmed the appeal. Further, the AR relied on the decisions of the CIT vs Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd, 232 Taxman 481 (Bom) and V Kalyanam vs ITO 327 ITR 477 (mad) for the proposition relied that the mere rejection of assessee’s explanation would not be a ground for levying penalty. Relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ITO, Company Ward IV(1) vs :-5-: Late Dr. Shamsheer, Director of M/s. Medimark Consultants (India) Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 564/Mds/2011 for assessment year 2005-06 dated 31.…

Rajaram Seshadri, Chennai vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1435/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1435/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…details and evidences which was not disputed by the AO. The Ld.AR argued that mere acceptance of addition should not lead to imposition of the penalty and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SV Kalyanam vs. CIT [2010] ITO 327 ITR 477 (MAD). On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.DR’) argued that the assessee has accepted the addition since he has no explanation with regard to the source of the credit and this is a clear case of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court jud…

Taher Afsar Ali, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7577/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7577/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Taher Afsar Ali, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 24(1(2), 5 Nand Kishore Indl Estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Off Mahakali Caves, Rdm Bandra-Kurla Complex, Andheri(E), Bandra (E), Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabpa0014H

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7577/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Taher Afsar Ali, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 24(1(2), 5 Nand Kishore Indl estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Off Mahakali Caves, RDM Bandra-Kurla Complex, Andheri(E), Bandra (E), Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AABPA0014H अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee by Shri Haresh P Shah प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16.6.2…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 600/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, CITFor Respondent: Sh.S. Subramanian, CA

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (322 ITR 73), deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) has also placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in Kamy Software Solutions P. Ltd. (214 CTR 403) & in S.V. Kalyanam v. ITO (327 ITR 477). The CIT(Appeals) further found that the details furnished by the assessee are not 15 I.T.A. No.600/Mds/12 inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, it would not attract penalty. The question now arises for consideration is when the assessee has furnished entire details of income by disclosing the same in the return of income, audit stateme…