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

232 ITR 311High Court1998#5229 most cited

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

Furnishing the assessment of the value of a property does not, in itself, constitute the furnishing of inaccurate particulars for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Diwan Enterprises v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · inaccurate particulars · assessment of value of property · furnishing inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27nfac

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2627/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…uj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 4 The hon'ble apex court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 as follows (page 546) : "The term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. Furnishing of all assessment of value of th…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. T.D.T. Copper Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2411/DEL/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2000-01 Acit, Circle-16(1), Vs. M/S T.D.T. Copper Ltd, New Delhi 7-Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (Pan:Aaact1028N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Satyajit, Ca Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Arise Out Of The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In Ita No. 1242 Of 2008, Dated 14Th December, 2009 Whereby The Earlier Order Of This Tribunal Dated 17Th January, 2008 Was Set Aside. The Revenue Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi, Dated 21St April, 2006 For The Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2000-01 On 29.11.2000, Disclosing A Loss Of Rs. 11,97,57,110/-. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & The Assessment Came To Be Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Satyajit, CA
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…uj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 6. In the light of the above legal proposition, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and thus sustain the same. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as such. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The decision…