PCIT v. Torque Pharmaceuticals

389 ITR 46High Court2016#20713 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 362,844 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing PCIT v. Torque Pharmaceuticals

Anilkumar Raviraju Chintalepati, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice(R) Shri P.P.Bhatt & G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2005-2006)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms Harkamal Sohi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE(R) SHRI P.P.BHATT, PRESIDENT AND G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT : (A.Y : 2005-2006) Anil Kumar Raviraju ITO 19(3)(1), now with Chintalepati, B-3, Anubhav 23(10(2), Mumbai Zaveri Road, Mulund(W). PAN No.acwpc 0009 k Vs (Appellant) . (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashok L Sharma, AR Respondent by : Ms Harkamal Sohi, DR Date of Hearing : 04/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31/05/2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VP : The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06 is directed against an order pass…

M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…6) 389 ITR 357 [in which it was held that merely because assessee had made certain claims, which were not accepted or were not acceptable to Revenue, that difference would not attract penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act]; PCIT vs. Torque Pharmaceuticals (2016) 389 ITR 46 [in which it was held that mere disallowance of expenditure without bringing any adequate material Page 17 of 21 Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 (AM) (JM) against the assessee to prove that it had concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of the income would not leave to levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c)…

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…aforesaid view that no penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) is liable to be imposed on a mere disallowance of expense under Sec.40(a)(ia) is fortified by the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of PCIT Vs. Torque Pharmaceuticals (2016) 389 ITR 46 (P&H). The High Court in its said order, had observed as under: “4. The primary challenge in this appeal is to the cancellation of penalty on addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee had made a claim of deduction in the return of income. No finding has been recorded by the authoriti…

DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e particulars of income to attract section 271(1)(c) . Secondly the Assessing Officer had levied penalty ignoring the explanation submitted by the assessee. The cancellation of penalty was therefore justified. " • PCIT VS. Torque Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd [2016] 389 ITR 46 (P&H) wherein it is held that "Held, that an addition to income was made on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had made a claim to deduction in the return of income. No finding had been recorded by the authorities below that the claim made by the assessee was mala fide. It had b…