M/s Superb Royal Travels and Tours Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

124 ITD 223Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#18969 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing M/s Superb Royal Travels and Tours Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(2)

…table, it would still require some further material to support the finding that the assessee had concealed its taxable income. We respectfully agree with this view. ’’ Similarly, a co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal has held in DCIT vs. JMD Advisors (P) Ltd. 124 ITD 223 (Delhi Trib.), “…the valuation made by the DVO is an estimate which can be a basis for making addition to the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment, but the same alone cannot be the basis to construe concealment for the purpose of imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c). 12. As such, having regard to all the facts of the case as d…

M/S. NEEMRANA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4080/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Neemrana Hotels Private Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Vs A-20B Lajpat Nagar-2, Circle 13(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Shivesh Pandiya, Adv. Department By: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd reported in 288 ITR 585 wherein it was held that disallowance of claim cannot be a ground to impose penalty under section 271(l)(c). Reliance was also placed on the ITAT’s decision in DCIT vs. JMD Advisors Pvt Ltd reported in 124 ITD 223 wherein it was held by the ITAT Delhi benches that no penalty can be levied on the addition made in the assessment on the basis of a valuation report of the DVO. 6 Assessment year 2008-09 3.3 In response, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) submitted that on page 40 and 42 of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has bee…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta, ACIT 17(3), 105, Apollo Street, Erstwhile- DCIT-12(1), 2nd Floor, Room No.31, Vs. Mumbai M.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 PAN: AANPM 7994C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by…

. ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

In the result the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6230/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 1996-97 Acit, Vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aabcp6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv

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

…hat where the addition is made only on the basis of such report with no other material on record, no addition and penalty thereon u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is warranted. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) DCIT v. JMD Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2010] 124 ITD 223 (Delhi Trib.) (b) T.P.K. Ramalingam v. CIT [1995] 211 ITR 520 (MAD.) The Ld. AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the various judicial pronouncements, the Ld. CIT (A) had rightly deleted the penalty. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that the…