Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu

23 VST 249Supreme Court of India2009#1373 most cited

What is Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu authority for?

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is not attracted merely because some items are not included in the tax return or the return contains incorrect statements, provided these transactions are fully incorporated and reflected in the assessee's account books.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sree Krishna Electricals · section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · disclosure in account books · items not included in return · incorrect statements in return · true and full disclosure · section 274 · section 276C

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 274Section 276CSection 250Section 115JBSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 270a(6)(a)section 40a(2)(a)section 115jcsection 270a(6)true and full disclosuredeletion of penaltyagency pepenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 24(a)section 92d

Judgments citing Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu

Pradipsinh Karansinh Thakor, Vadodara vs. DCIT Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 166/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Darji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…see will invite penalty under s. 271(l)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as, the CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion. —Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu &. Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) applied; Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dt. 23rd Oct., 2007 of the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of 2007) affirmed. 10. In view of the above said discussion, we allow appeal of the assessee and direct A.O. to delete the penalty. 11. Now we come to ITA No. 167/Ahd/2019 for 2013-14, the assessee has taken following grou…

Mayur Mathurdas Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

ITA 698/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kabra - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

…Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. Thi…

Shri Vijaysing P. Solanki, Surat vs. The Dy. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle -3(1), Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

ITA 697/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kabra - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

…Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. Thi…

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

…ccepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee…

Abs Entertainment Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3467/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Abs Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7Th Floor, 203, Aaykar Bhavan, 2Nd Vs. B-16, Veera Industrial Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Estate, Off Link Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400020. 400053. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3468/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Abs Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. B-16, Veera Industrial Room No. 203, Maharshi Estate, Off Link Road, Karve Road, New Marine Andheri (W), Mumbai- Lines, Mumbai-400020. 400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca1347E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Desi (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3467/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ ABS Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7th Floor, 203, Aaykar Bhavan, 2nd Vs. B-16, Veera Industrial Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Estate, Off Link Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400020. 400053. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3468/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ ABS Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,…

Shri Vijay Champak Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.281/AHD/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BEWPP0109Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah - CA Respondent by : Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 01/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. By way of this appeal,…

Grewal Export Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7411/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7411 /Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Grewal Export Pvt. Ltd. Acit 15(1)(2) 901-902 Great Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, It Office Vs. Summit A Plot No.56, Queens Rd., Mumbai- Sector-15, Cbd Belapur 400020. Mumbai-400614. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg0544P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Puri Revenue By: Ms. Surabhi Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.04.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PuriFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. Thi…

Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Passing The Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. Thi…

The ACIT -3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Maya Spinners Ltd., Indore

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

ITA 392/IND/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 1996-97

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 ACIT-3(1) M/s Maya Spinners Ltd., Indore 207, Manas Bhawan, बनाम/ 11, RNT Marg, Indore Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.AACCMO834H Appellant by Shri Lal Chand, CIT-DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing: 24.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 28/02/2017 pertaining to assessment…

M/S Triveni Quality Minerals Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Suhani Mamodia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…he Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009} 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assess…

Hycron Electronics vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1194 & 1195/Chd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT Vs. M/s Hycron Electronics Circle, Parwanoo Vill: Bated, Barotiwala Solan PAN No. AADFH1249K ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Chd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. Dy. CIT Plot No. 35, EPIP-II Circle, Parwanoo Vill Thana, Baddi, Solan Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Dr. Gulshan Raj Date of hearing : 14…

DCIT, Parwanoo vs. M/S Hycron Electronics, Solan

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1194 & 1195/Chd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT Vs. M/s Hycron Electronics Circle, Parwanoo Vill: Bated, Barotiwala Solan PAN No. AADFH1249K ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Chd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. Dy. CIT Plot No. 35, EPIP-II Circle, Parwanoo Vill Thana, Baddi, Solan Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Dr. Gulshan Raj Date of hearing : 14…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ ACIT, Central Circle-20 M/s. Ankur Drugs & R.No. 402, Pharma Ltd., 4t h floor, 29t h Floor, Lotus Business v. Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Andheri Link Road, M.K Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai- 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCA2062M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena, C…

DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri vs. M/S Shelcon Properties Pvt.Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 372/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 139Section 271(1)(c)Section 80ASection 80I

…e will invite penalty under s. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion. Shree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) applied; Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dated. 23rd October, 2007 of the Gujrat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of 2007) affirmed. (Paras 9,10, & 12) 6 I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Shelcom Properties Pvt. Ltd. Conclusion: Merely because the assessee claimed deduction of interest expenditure which has…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. Shri Alok Garg, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARPG7151K Assessee by : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 21.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Aligarh. 2. The only grievance of the department in this app…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dhl Operations B.V., Netherlands, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

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

…ssee will invite penalty under s. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as, the CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion.- Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC), applied, Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dt, 23rd Oct., 2007 of the Gujarat High court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of 2007) affirmed." 9. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of this case, we have to necessarily hold that merely because the assessee has made a bonafide claim, and the Revenue has rejected the claim on a diffe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 191/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 13. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assess…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 189/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 13. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2853/DEL/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 30

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/s. SRF Ltd., Block-C, Sector - ACIT, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon PAN : AAACS0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 20.09.2016 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 06/03/2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New De…

Urmila Bhabera, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5177/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Mrs. Urmila Bhabhera, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 901/902, Shanghvi Villa, S. Income Tax -20(3), Mumbai, 5Th V. Road, Andheri (W), Room No.506, Floor, Mumbai 400 058 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aajpb 6192K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143Section 271

…ew. Apart from that, the addition made on account of commission payment of Rs.1,17,945/- has also been deleted by the Tribunal in the said order. 7.3 We have also analyzed the judgments cited by the learned AR in the cased of Shree Krishna Electricals (2009) 23 VST 249(SC) wherein it has been held that “penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed by “A” was disallowed”. We have also gone through the judgment Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it was held that “‘particulars’ means details of the claim made where information given is not found or found to be incorrect, ‘A’ cannot be held guilty of furn…