Vanaik Investors Ltd. Vs ITO 5 SOT 591 (Del) 2. Vijay I. Sheth v. ITO

100 ITD 387Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#18562 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Vanaik Investors Ltd. Vs ITO 5 SOT 591 (Del) 2. Vijay I. Sheth v. ITO

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

…o. Ltd.: 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (FB) 9 | P a g e • Dr Sita Bhagi v. ACIT in ITANos.l286/Del/2017 (Del. Tri.) 2.16. Kind attention, in this regard, is further invited to the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Budge Budge Co. Ltd: 100 ITD 387 wherein the Tribunal held that routine statement by the AO in the assessment order that "penalty under section 271(l)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars ” does not constitute valid satisfaction for purposes of levy of penalty under that section. The Tribunal held that the bare minimum is that the language must clearly spell out…

Sharsh Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S SHARSH FINANCE & ACIT, CIRCLE 18(1), INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD., VS. NEW DELHI 16L, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 001 (PAN: AAHCS1410L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.R. Department by : Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/12/2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi on the following grounds…

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7092/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore
Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…annot give rise to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its contentions. 1. Vanaik Investors Ltd. Vs ITO 5 SOT 591 (Del) 2. Vijay I. Sheth Vs ITO 63 TTJ 488 (Ahd.) 3. ITO Vs Budge Budge Co. Ltd. 100 ITD 387 (Kol.) Therefore, it was contended that non acceptance of the claim by the department does not bring the assessee within the purview of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) wherein it was held that a claim which may not be sustainabl…

Skf Inida Ltd( Since May 19 2004 Name Has Been Changed From Skf Bearing India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore
Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…annot give rise to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its contentions. 1. Vanaik Investors Ltd. Vs ITO 5 SOT 591 (Del) 2. Vijay I. Sheth Vs ITO 63 TTJ 488 (Ahd.) 3. ITO Vs Budge Budge Co. Ltd. 100 ITD 387 (Kol.) Therefore, it was contended that non acceptance of the claim by the department does not bring the assessee within the purview of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) wherein it was held that a claim which may not be sustainabl…