2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT v. Jaswant Rai

248 ITR 159High Court2001#20086 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing 2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT v. Jaswant Rai

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)

…, > CIT V. Girish DevchandRajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) > CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi (2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (KAR.) > CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162ITR 517 (MP) > CIT vs. Jaswant Rai (1997) 142 CTR (P&H) 49 > CIT vs. Mecon Builders & Engineers (2001) 248 ITR 159 (Del) 9.12 I have also noted that the main issue on which penalty had been levied is disallowance of foreign exchange derivative losses amounting to Rs. 2,89,00,000/-. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that this issue was highly debatable prior to the issue of the CBDT Notification dated 23.03.2010.The Apex Court decision in the case of Wo…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 953/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT Vs. Jaswant Rai (1997) 142 CTR 49 (P&H) CIT Vs Mecon Builders & Engineers (2001) 248 ITR 159 (Del.) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) ITRV-HC-KAR-093) In the following cases it was also held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied where addition has been made on estimate basis:- Surat Fashions Ltd. Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-ITAT-AHD-134) Narayansingh J Deora Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-1TAT-MUM-28 On the basis of the above subm…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 952/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT Vs. Jaswant Rai (1997) 142 CTR 49 (P&H) CIT Vs Mecon Builders & Engineers (2001) 248 ITR 159 (Del.) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) ITRV-HC-KAR-093) In the following cases it was also held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied where addition has been made on estimate basis:- Surat Fashions Ltd. Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-ITAT-AHD-134) Narayansingh J Deora Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-1TAT-MUM-28 On the basis of the above subm…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 951/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT Vs. Jaswant Rai (1997) 142 CTR 49 (P&H) CIT Vs Mecon Builders & Engineers (2001) 248 ITR 159 (Del.) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) ITRV-HC-KAR-093) In the following cases it was also held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied where addition has been made on estimate basis:- Surat Fashions Ltd. Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-ITAT-AHD-134) Narayansingh J Deora Vs ACIT (2011) ITRV-1TAT-MUM-28 On the basis of the above subm…

2007) 162 Taxmann 211 (Kar) CIT Vs Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) CIT v. Jaswant Rai (248 ITR 159) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax