How many judgments cite Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

86 judgments on BharatTax cite Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (168 ITR 705), spanning 2001 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 153A, Section 274, Section 132, Section 271AAB.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT

168 ITR 705Supreme Court of India1987#1318 most cited

What is Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT · 168 ITR 705 · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · voluntary surrender of income · agreement to addition · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · burden of proof · avoidance of litigation · deletion of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 153A Section 274 Section 132 Section 271AAB Section 276C Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271aab section 276c section 276 non-compete fee surrender of income section 271aab deletion of penalty full and true disclosure section 273 section 271aa furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…port of my view, further, I would like to placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the case of DOT vs Unisynth Chemicals 5967/ MUM/ 2014,held that:- "The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of nondisclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the appellant may forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy 01 acceptance. The Supreme Court in that case held that the Tribunal which had held t…

Income Tax Officer-9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5466/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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)

…ome before penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be levied. I have noted that the AO had levied the penalty for concealment only on the ground that the claim of donation was not pressed before the CIT(A). 9.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 705) has held that there may be a hundred and one reasons for not protesting and agreeing to an addition but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income 9.10 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has in the in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning ITA No.l307/Bang/2003 [2013- ITRV-HC-KAR-093] had hel…

Shri Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 1252/JPR/2019[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(12)Section 132(4)Section 132(5)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…y the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001 251 ITR 99, wherein the Court held- “Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to he added 11 Sh. Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undo…

Shri Kanheya Lal, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1316/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…sh between the two expressions. If the addition made by The A.O. but he has not disputed in the same in the Appeal such acceptance of addition does not mean concealment of income. It is held by The Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 705) --- Indeed there may be numerous reasons with the tax payer for not approaching the first appellate authority for justice. Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manunathna Cotton & Ginning ITA No. 1307/Bang/2003/ [2013-ITR-HC-KAR- 093] has held that even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and ha…

ITO, Sard- 1 (2) Thane, Thane vs. Mak Rubber Products, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Ward-1(2) Thane बिधम/ Mak Rubber Products Room No.24, B-Wing, 6Th 301/306, B-Wing, Giriya Co. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Op. Hsg. Society, Mahatma No. 16Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Phule Road, Naupada, Thane (W)-400604. Thane-400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfm8605N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Nasik [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271

…red by him in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. That conduct of the assessee according to the Revenue was by itself sufficient to show that there was concealment. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of nondisclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy 0] acceptance. The Supreme Court in that case held that the Tribunal which had held th…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…lip N. Shroff. 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as considered by the Apex Court in the case Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills, 168 ITR 705 (SC), it was held that penalty could not be imposed merely because the appellant agreed to be assessed on a particular income. The decision of the Apex Court was based on the provisions as they were originally enacted. The view taken by the division bench in the case of Dilip N. Shroff was doubted and overruled in UOI-Vs. Dharmendra Textile Proce…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

Rheal Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…-filing of appeal against additions in assessment itself does not amount to acceptance of disallowance and cannot automatically form basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 705)(SC); Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 10 Relying on the decision in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11) (SC), ACIT v. DSL Software Ltd. (20 taxmann.com 408) (T Del), Pfizer Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 146 TTJ 385 (Mum) (Trib), the Ld. counsel explains that when a legal claim is based on an expert’s opinion/report/cer…

ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd.Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6355/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm I.T.O.-21(2)(3) Vs. Shri Mohd. Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai. Room No. 3, Chawl No. 3, Muncipal Chawl, Umar Rajjab Road, Opp. Rehman Masjid, Morland Road, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aacpk 4225 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…m in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. That conduct of the assessee according to the revenue was by itself sufficient to show that there was concealment." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, has also pointed out that not every case of nondisclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee ay forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy." 9.4 In the present case also appellant offered income because of his inability…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…ditionally in view of the decisions of the various courts as given below. (i) CIT Vs. Kiran & Co. - 217 ITR 326 (Bom) (ii) ITO Vs. Majit Singh Baldev Singh Commission Agents - 69ITD197 (Amritsar) (1999) (iii) OT Vs. Sir Shadilat Suggasr & Gen. Mills Ltd. - 168 ITR 705 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal - 241ITR124 (MP) (v) ACIT Vs. Hernam Singh Bishan Singh Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. -69 TTJ 14 (Delhi) (2000) 5. It Is our humble submission that once having accepted the surrendered addition) which was made with the intention to avoid long drawn litigation and to buy peace with a specific condition attached the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur vs. Smt. Shehla Ahmed, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT-1 v. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur TAN/PAN:AEXPA4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 [In ITA No.181/LKW/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad v. Dy. CIT-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur TAN/PAN:AEXPA4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department by: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee by: Shri Swarn Singh, FCA Date of hearing: 24 07 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 08 201…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…een affirmed by the Supreme Court in 251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir ShadiLal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. (viii) The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has. held that for the purpose of penalty matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271 (1(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, though not conclusive, are no…

Manish Goyal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 653/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2005-06 Manish Goyal, Vs. D.C.I.T, Lokesh Birds P. Ltd. Central Circle, Sitaram Bazar, Kesargunj, Ajmer, Ajmer-305001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAXPG3879Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 15/…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1538/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Transwind Communication & Vs. The DCIT(OSD), Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, 92, New York Tower-A, Ahmedabad. S. G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 059. [PAN No. AABCT 3026 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.R. Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 19.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant ap…

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…ven in the assessment proceedings. Merely because an addition has not been contested, it cannot be presumed that the addition represents concealed income. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. reported at 168 ITR 705 that from the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission. Hence in the present case, even 17 M/s Silver & Art Palace Vs. DCIT though the Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed the appeal on merits (though admitted by the…

M/S Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6140/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…viable. 5 [Type the document title] CIT v Santosh Financiers (2001) 247 ITR 742 (Ker) following the rationale of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT (Addl) v Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) and Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v C/T(1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC). CIT v Seeds India Ltd. (P.H.I) (2008) 301 ITR 13 (Del). Where there was a solitary mistake in debiting cost of wires to consumable stores account and there was no suggestion from the Income-tax Department, that the mistake was not bona fide, penalty is not leviable. CIT v Union Electric Corporation (2006) 281 ITR 266 (Guj) [2012] 24 taxman…

Hilton International Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7701/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S.P. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kr. Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 7701/Del/2017, (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Hilton International LLC, ACIT, Gurgaon. Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi. PAN No: AADCH0264K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. S.P. Singh, AR Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kr. Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.07.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 06/07/2018. ORDER PER: B.R.R. Kumar, AM This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, dated 13.10.2017 pertain…

Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 250

…sment has been completed by accepting the offer of an assessee, no penalty can be imposed. It has not been so observed by the Apex ITA No.6076/Del/2012 AY 2009-10 Sh. Haripal Singh Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ljtd. Vs. CIT (1987) reported in 168 ITR 705, as the Tribunal held. Its conclusion has been arrived at by a clear misappreciation of the ratio laid down in the said case." (b) In the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO reported in 262 ITR 633 the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under. "Even if the assessee had included the same in his return, that would not preclude the assessee f…