12 Shri Ritesh P Burad 18. In Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT

110 ITR 54High Court1977#8869 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing 12 Shri Ritesh P Burad 18. In Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT

ALLIED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MALAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30 (1) (1), BANDRA

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

ITA 4121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodenFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…ality Pvt. Ltd., dt. 05-04-2024 and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Malla Appalaraju vs. ITO in ITA No. 253/Viz/2023, dt. 28-05-2024. 6 7. Further, reliance was placed on the following decisions: a. Padma Ram Bharali vs. CIT, 110 ITR 54 (Gau.) b. CIT vs. Jyoti Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann. com 65 c. New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (GUJ) d. Kansara Bearings Ltd vs. ACIT [2013] Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur. e. DCIT vs. B.J.D. Paper products [2012] 17 taxmann.com 11 (Luck.) 8. It was submitted that all the above decisions underscore a fundamental legal principle that the AO mu…

MAKASHOOD ASHARAF,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…ner of Income Tax vs. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 284 ITR 364 (Mad), the jurisdictional Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT- Lukcnow vs. Jagat Rice Mill [2006] 150 taxman 5 (All), Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Padma Ram Bharti vs. CIT 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows 242 taxman 180 (SC) and the judgment of the ITAT, Surat Bench in the case of Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia vs. Income Tax Officer 2023 149 taxman.com 276. Copies of these judgments are also filed in the paper book. Subsequently, another paper book was filed containing the or…

SHRI SHIVAJI DATTATRAY SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…le opportunity of being heard before the order imposing penalty was passed. In such scenario, the penalty imposed shall not be justified as held in the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) (ii) Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 54 (Gau) (iii) K. M. Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379 (Guj) Therefore, on the context of principles of natural justice also, 5 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane such penalty cannot be imposed, if there is ambiguity in arriving at satisfaction by the AO. The basis of issuance of notice should remain the same while imposing penalty. If the notice is…

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

…alty was being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particu…

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

…alty was being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particu…

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

…alty was being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particu…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2010-11 The DCIT, Fine Line Circuit Circle-1(3), Company, Baroda Vs Plot No. E-8, GIDC, (Appellant) Manjusar, Savli, Vadodara-391770 PAN: AAAFF6253A (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.R. Date of hearing : 28-11-2018 Date of pronouncement : 30-11-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the CIT(A)-5, Vadodara dated 25-04-201…

RITESH P. BURAD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane PAN/GIR No.ADGPB7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri E Sridhar Date of Hearing 18/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 3, Thane dated 17/02/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of imposition of p…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2201/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 2202/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 ITA No. 2203/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 ITA No. 2204/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Accurate Transformers Ltd., Vs DCIT, 8, Local Shopping Centre, 2nd /3rd Central Circle-22(New CC-28), Floor, Vardhman Siddarth Plaza, New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/GIR No. AACCA7126L Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal , CA & Sh. Nipun Mittal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, S…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2201/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 2202/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 ITA No. 2203/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 ITA No. 2204/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Accurate Transformers Ltd., Vs DCIT, 8, Local Shopping Centre, 2nd /3rd Central Circle-22(New CC-28), Floor, Vardhman Siddarth Plaza, New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/GIR No. AACCA7126L Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal , CA & Sh. Nipun Mittal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, S…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2201/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 2202/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 ITA No. 2203/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 ITA No. 2204/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Accurate Transformers Ltd., Vs DCIT, 8, Local Shopping Centre, 2nd /3rd Central Circle-22(New CC-28), Floor, Vardhman Siddarth Plaza, New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/GIR No. AACCA7126L Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal , CA & Sh. Nipun Mittal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, S…

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2201/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2201/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 2202/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 ITA No. 2203/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 ITA No. 2204/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Accurate Transformers Ltd., Vs DCIT, 8, Local Shopping Centre, 2nd /3rd Central Circle-22(New CC-28), Floor, Vardhman Siddarth Plaza, New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/GIR No. AACCA7126L Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal , CA & Sh. Nipun Mittal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, S…