How many judgments cite National Textiles v. CIT?

134 judgments on BharatTax cite National Textiles v. CIT (249 ITR 125), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does National Textiles v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(1).

National Textiles v. CIT

249 ITR 125High Court2001#763 most cited

What is National Textiles v. CIT authority for?

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

134

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

National Textiles v. CIT · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · income assessed on estimation · levy of penalty · animus · 249 ITR 125 · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

164 CTR 2009

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)commissioner (appeals)section 44 section 271 section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing National Textiles v. CIT

Shri Subhash Bechulal Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 220/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Subhash Bechulal Soni, I.T.O., B/H Shahwadi Bus Stand, Vs. Ward-6(4), Shahwadi, Ahmedabad. Narol, Ahmedabad-382405. Pan: Adzps9498J

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…to be carried out by the revenue authorities. As such the revenue authorities cannot rely the basis enumerating from the quantum proceedings for levying the penalty. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of national textiles reported in 249 ITR 125 wherein it was held that the assessee in the quantum proceedings failed to produce the accountant but the department also in penalty proceedings made no effort to summon him. 10.4 In view of the above, we are not inclined to uphold the order of the authorities below for levying the penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)© of the Act on ac…

M/S. Panchsheel Intermediates, Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat Pan : Aadfp1002C Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat PAN : AADFP1002C APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Sapnesh Seth, CA Respondent by MS. Anupama Singla, (Sr.DR) Date of hearing 29/03/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/03/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the o…

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Us: -

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…9 [SC] 3. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as the AO has not discharged the burden to show that the assessee has in fact concealed the income or assessee has furnished which particulars of income which are inaccurate: National Textiles Corp. Vs CIT 249 ITR 125 CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills 253 ITR 192 4. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as there is no specific charge as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. CIT Vs Manu Engg. 122 ITR 506 (Guj) Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj) Mitsu Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT (Guj) Tax Appeal No. 21…

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4490/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pinisetty Satya Prasanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27iSection 40

…y has suffered huge losses no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied and relied upon the order passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases cited as National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj), Qpro Infotech Ltd. vs. DCIT– ITA No.2197/M/2013 order dated 13.07.2016 and ACITvs. Manish Organics India Ltd.–ITA No.2155/Ahd/10 order dated 30.11.201. 18. Ratio of the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is that when the disallowance made by the AO has not 10 M/s. Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. been contested by the…

Ganesh Vishnu Khanolkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1409/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1409/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Ganesh Vishnu Khanolkar Acit 26(1) C-11, Bldg, 701, 7Th Floor, 101, Sai Samman Co. Op. Vs. Soc, Plot No. 28-29, Union Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Park, Chembur, Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (East), 400071. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk5024D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Patil Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Teamed Assessing Officer, Being 100% Of Tax On The Addition To Income U/S 271(1)(E) Of

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)

…gard, we find support of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H). We also find support of the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A)…

Maredia Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6868/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6868/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Maredia Enterprises बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(3) Mumbai Now 1404, Arcadia, Ncpa Marg, Assessed By Ito 17(2)(3) Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400021. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfm4130B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 271Section 274

…gard, we find support of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H). We also find support of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A)…

ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashapura Mould Plast, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4075/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4075/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-29(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ashapura Mould Plast Room No.403, 4Th Floor, Gala No.100, 2Nd Floor, New Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Near, Unique, Industrial Estate, Dr. Videsh Bhavan, Bandra R. P. Road, Mulund (W), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfa1268M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(1)(1)(C) Of Rs.81,690/- As The Addition Was On Account A.Y.2009-10 Of Bogus Purchase Of Rs.2,64,355/- @ 12.5% On Bogus Purchased Of Rs.21,14,840/- From Hawala Parties.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

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

…n the basis of decision of 4 A.Y.2009-10 Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H). We also find support of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfered with at this appe…

Kaneriya Sand and Aggregates Pvt.Ltd, Surat vs. Dy.CIT, Valsad

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 186/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Kaneriya Sand & The Dy. Commissioner Of Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs U-6, Jk Towers, Ring Road, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Surat. Pan : Aadck8622N Applicant Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…l or melafide, the assessee had not furnished accurate particulars nor concealed the income. To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; 5 M/s Kaneriya Sand and Aggregates Pvt. Ltd.  National Textile Vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125,  Mukeshchandra A Lakdawala Vs ITO (2010) 0004 ITR 307 (Trib),  CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd (2013) 054 (I) ITCL 0019 and  Price Water Cooper Private Limited Vs CIT [CA No. 6924 of 2012 of Supreme Court]. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR for the revenue fu…

Income Tax Officer 12(1) |(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Riddhi Chem. Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5748/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5748 To 5750/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Room No.226, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Office No.3, Gikul Apartments, Road, Mumbai-400020. Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca7111H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 22.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5748 to 5750/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) ITO-12(1)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Room No.226, 2nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Office No.3, Gikul Apartments, Road, Mumbai-400020. Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAGCA7111H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Assessee by: Shri Ajay Singh (AR) सुनवाई की ता…

ITO 28 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Yusuf Ahmed Solanki, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7298/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7298/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(5) बिधम/ Yusuf Ahmed Solanki Room No.323, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Proprietor Of M/S. Sayco Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway Station Enterprises 54, Sector 1A, Complex, Vashi-400703. Timber Mart, Kopar Khairene, Navi Mumbai- 400709. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aerps1196J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

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

…penalty levied on account of bogus purchase and relied upon the number of cases discussed in the order which has been reproduced above. There is no need to repeat the same. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated. The CIT(A) has passed the well-reasoned order which nowhere required any interfere on behalf us. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly w…

ITO 12 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Mehta Infocom Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 7678/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7678/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-12(3)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Mehta Infocom Pvt. Room No.145, 1St Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mehta House, Af/3, Cama Road, Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Nr, Hub Mall, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm2000E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Of Rs.4,76,659/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Original Return Of Income & Thus Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Within The Meaning Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 7678/M/2019 A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 69C

…ti Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 83) (P & H) and CIT Vs. M. M. Rice Mills 253 ITR 17 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated. Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfered at this appellate stage. 6. In the result, the appeals fi…

ITO 9 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Glumex Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6994/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ase of DCIT 24(2) Vs. Unisynth Chemical in ITA. No,5967/Mum/2014 and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reiance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR (SC). Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfered at this appellate stage. 6. In the result, the appeals filed…

ACIT -Circle 32(3), Mumbai vs. Vinay Unique Construction Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 6431/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6431/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit- Circle-32(3) बिधम/ M/S. Vinay Unique Room No.732, 7Th Floor, Construction Co. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, A-8, Om Mahaeshwar Bandra (E), Mumbai- Niketan, Harsha Park, 400051. Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cdops6602K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Of Rs.3,25,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Return Of

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 690Section 69C

…the addition was raised on estimation basis. No penalty is leviable when the income has been assessed on the basis of estimation. In this regard, we also find support of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2021 (SHAMIM YAHYA) (AMARJI…

ITO, Ward - 3 (1), Kalyan vs. Bhagwattilal Mithalal Patwari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal file by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4587/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhito, Ward 3(1) Shri Bhagwattilal Meethalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Patwari, Prop. Of M/S National Laminates, Murbad Road, Kalyan (West) Vs. Shop No. 8, Nerurkar Building, 421301 Manpada Road, Dombivali (E), 421201 Pan – Amvpp3140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Undoubtedly, the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in case where the income has been estimated. In this regard we also find support of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 164 CTR 2009 (Guj). We nowhere found any ITA No. 4587/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 3 ITO, Ward 3(1) Vs. Shri Bhagwattilal Meethalal Patwari illegality and infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in question, therefore, we upheld the order and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 4. In the result, the appeal file by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in th…

ITO 28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Maurya Tiles, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4502/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4502/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(2)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Maurya Tiles 3Rd Floor, R. No.311 Tower Shop No. 4 & 5 Plot No.575- Vs. No.5 Vashi Rly Station A Vashi Belapur Road Complex Vashi Navi Shirvane Nerul Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm6694H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case An In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 43,922/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4502/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO-28(2)(2) बिधम/ M/s. Maurya Tiles 3rd Floor, R. No.311 Tower Shop No. 4 & 5 Plot No.575- Vs. No.5 Vashi Rly Station A Vashi Belapur Road Complex Vashi Navi Shirvane Nerul Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFM6694H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Sethi (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख…

Sujata Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3))(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 4346/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4346/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sujata Shah बिधम/ Ito-19(3)(4) Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, C/O K. M. Kapadia & Vs. Associates 49, 1St Floor, Mumbai. Ashoka Shopping, Centre, L. T. Marg, Mumbai-01. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpv8631Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-04, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,90,222/- Be Deleted."

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

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

…penalty. Penalty is not to liable to be sustainable in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, Naresh Chand Agarwal V. CIT and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case titled as National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj). Accordingly, in view of the above mentioned law (supra), we are of the view that the penalty upon the said addition is not justifiable, therefore, we ITA. No.4346/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the penalty. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Thane vs. Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatti, Mumbai

ITA 5327/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5327/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatti Ward 1(5), Thane Lovely Industrial Estate, फनाभ/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aarpb9526H अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Khalsa, DRFor Respondent: None

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 5327/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatti Ward 1(5), Thane Lovely Industrial Estate, फनाभ/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AARPB9526H अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent by : None…

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Habibullah M. H. Mullajiwala(Prop.M/S.Lucky Supply Agency), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5373/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5373 & 5374/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 20(1)(5) बिधम/ Shri Habibullah M. H. Room No.121, 1St Floor, Mullajiwala (Prop. M/S. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lucky Supply Agency) Mumbai-400012. Shop No. 8, Yusuf Manzil, 2, Sofia Zuber Road, Opp. Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpm7661R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. Ita. No.5374/Mum/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5373 & 5374/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 20(1)(5) बिधम/ Shri Habibullah M. H. Room No.121, 1st Floor, Mullajiwala (Prop. M/s. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lucky Supply Agency) Mumbai-400012. Shop No. 8, Yusuf Manzil, 2, Sofia Zuber Road, Opp. Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AFDPM7661R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR) Assessee by:…

ITO 28(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vipul P Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4437/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4437/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(4) बिधम/ Shri Vipul P. Shah Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Shop No. A-1, Industrial Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway House, Sector-21, Turbhe Station Complex Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacps5220L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.62,802/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, A.Y.2010-11 Without Appreciating That The Onus Was On The Assessee To Establish The Genuineness Of Such Purchases By Producing Such Parties Before The Assessing Officer & The Assessee Failed To Discharge His Onus"?

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…elhi Bench in the case of Shruti Fastners Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0183 Del Trib and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta Vs. ITO (2017) 49 CCH 0066 Mum Trib. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit has been estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfered at this appellate stage. 6. In the r…

Yatish Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4251/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4251/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Yatish Impex P. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-9(3)(4) 215 Hemlok Apartment 87, Mumbai. Vs. Kilachand Street, S. V. Rd, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1225C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - That The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Penalty 271(1)(C) Of The “1. Act Rs.30,00,000/- Is Quite Illegal. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Proper Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (SR. AR)

Section 133ASection 144Section 148

…completed by estimating the profit. No penalty is leviable where the assessment was completed on the basis of the estimation of profit. In this regard, we find support of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the no penalty is liable to be sustainable where the profit was estimated. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronou…