Reliance Industries Limited v. CIT

377 ITR 74High Court2015#24737 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Reliance Industries Limited v. CIT

M/S. G M Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

…sehoods. The errors claimed by the assessee are not bonafide. Therefore, he held that assessee is ‘assessee in default’ under Section 221(1) of the Act. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Reliance Industries Limited vs. CIT 377 ITR 74, wherein it has been held that the penalty would be imposable even if tax has been deposited before initiation of penalty proceedings. He further held that the facts in the case of the assessee are identical to the issue decided by Special Bench in case of Claris Life sciences Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 498/AHD/2011 dated 26 September 2017. Accor…

M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 498/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G D Agarwal, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadav] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [Pan: Aaacc6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)

…ginal income tax return, it will also incentivise making mistakes in filing of the income tax returns. Learned Departmental Representative then invites our attention to Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CIT [(2015) 377 ITR 74 (Bom)] in support of the proposition that penalty under section 221 is leviable even if tax has been subsequently deposited before the initiation of penalty proceedings. Learned Departmental Representative then invites our attention to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna Vs CIT [(2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC)], in support of…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Kbr Infratech Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1303/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. C. Eranna, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. C. P. Ramaswami, Advocate

Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220Section 221

…receipt of order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) after it was declared to be an assessee to be in default by the ITA.1303/Bang/2015 Page - 6 Revenue. Therefore , the assessee is in default. The Bombay High Court in the case of Relience industries Ltd v CIT & others in 377 ITR 74 held ,inter alia , in para 20 to 25 as under (relevant portion only extracted) : “20 ........................... In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessee is in default. Moreover, in terms of section 221 of the Act, the only condition precedent to impose of penalty upon the assessee is that it should be in default or deemed to b…