RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (232 ITR 311)

Q: What is RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis.

Q: How many judgments cite RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (232 ITR 311), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(2).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…ate basis. • CIT vs Smt K Meenakshi Kutty in 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) • CIT(A) vs Valmik bhai H Patel in 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd in 216 ITR 92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 422 (Mad) 7.15. The AO in his penalty order has held that assessee has not attempted to establish his bonafides nor submitted any explana…

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…1 Taxman 320 (Punajb & Haryana) 18. Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 125 Taxman 242 (Punjab & Haryana) 19. CIT vs. Ravail Singh 254 ITR 191(P&H) 20. Hari Om Kumar Umesh Chand vs. ITO. 124 Taxman 213 (Agra) 21. CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (Madhya Pradesh-HC) 22. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 86 Taxman 20(Guj) 12. We also find support from the series of decisions by different High Courts as well Coordinate Benches of ITAT, wherein it was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty is sustainable. For the sake of clarity, the following decisions are as under:…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…onal Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 124. iii) Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311. vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 10. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy and illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.59,00,884/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed.” 11. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

…onal Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 124. iii) Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311. vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 10. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy and illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.59,00,884/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed. 6 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pr…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…(Mad). 6 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., > Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85(P&H). > CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). > CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). > CIT vs. Lallubhaijogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) > CIT vs. Shivnarayanjamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 ITR 121 > CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin& Party (1999) 240 ITR 778 (Raj) > CIT vs. B.D. Ram…

BAFNA JANGADA CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 452/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80I

…ional Textiles Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 124 iii) Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311 vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 11. On perusal of the assessment order, it would clearly suggests that it is a case of mere disallowance of claim made which does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor is it false claim, as the assessee had made a bonafide claim and contended vehemently the findings o…

SATISH SARAF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…(P &H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). (Ill) CIT(A) vs. ValimkbhaiH. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (MP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs, CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)J (vlii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] Reliance is further placed on the following decisions of various High Courts/ Tribunals wherein, it has been categorically h…

M/S. YAELSTAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…Yelstar Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT-Circle-2(1)(1)Surat/I.T.A.No. 198/SRT/2018/A.Y. 07-08 Page 1 of 10 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH-SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.198/SRT/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 Yaelstar Diamond (P) Ltd, Deputy Commissioner of FC-3011, 3rd Floor, Bharat Diamond Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Surat Mumbai-400 051. [PAN: AAACY 3155 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kiran K. Shah, AR िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Sreenivas…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. M.R.K.PIPES LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 636/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddawr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 636/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT Miss. MRK Pipes Ltd. Vs. Circle – 4 Parasrampuria Chambers Jaipur Road No.1, VKI, Sikar Road , Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCM 9497 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee…

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e is estimated. Our attention was drawn to judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 316(Delhi), judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1996) 232 ITR 311(MP). It was submitted that the decision relied by I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 the Department were not applicable as they relates to pre-amended period. 9.2. It was submitted by Ld. DR on the other hand that no proper sale vouchers evidencing sale of milk was found during search and survey operations and the claim of the assessee of selling mi…

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e is estimated. Our attention was drawn to judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 316(Delhi), judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1996) 232 ITR 311(MP). It was submitted that the decision relied by I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 the Department were not applicable as they relates to pre-amended period. 9.2. It was submitted by Ld. DR on the other hand that no proper sale vouchers evidencing sale of milk was found during search and survey operations and the claim of the assessee of selling mi…