271(l)(c). In CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

215 CTR 493High Court2008#17217 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing 271(l)(c). In CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

Sh. Roshan Lal Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1555/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…the case of CIT vs RadhaKrishanGoel (2005) 278 ITR 454 observed that non disclosure of manner of earning the undisclosed income is not relevant for the purpose of availing benefit under Explanation 5 below section 271(l)(c). In CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 215 CTR 493 (Guj). It was held the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement under section 132(4) and paid taxes thereon before assessment was entitle to immunity from penalty under section 271(l)(c) under Explanation 5 thereof even though the statement did not specify the manner in which the income representing value of diamonds in his…

Sh. Amit Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1557/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…n the case ofCITvs RadhaKrishanGoel ( 2005) 278 ITR 454 observed fhat non disclosure of manner of earning the undisclosed income is not relevant for the purpose of availing benefit under Explanation 5 below section 271(l)(c). In CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 215 CTR 493 (Guj). It was held the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement under section 132(4) and paid taxes thereon before assessment was entitle to immunity from penalty under section 271(l)(c) under Explanation 5 thereof even though the statement did not specify the manner in which the income representing value of diamonds in his…

Sh. Ashok Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1556/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…n the case ofCITvs RadhaKrishanGoel ( 2005) 278 ITR 454 observed fhat non disclosure of manner of earning the undisclosed income is not relevant for the purpose of availing benefit under Explanation 5 below section 271(l)(c). In CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 215 CTR 493 (Guj). It was held the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement under section 132(4) and paid taxes thereon before assessment was entitle to immunity from penalty under section 271(l)(c) under Explanation 5 thereof even though the statement did not specify the manner in which the income representing value of diamonds in his…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Kishangarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2014-15
Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 630/JP/17 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Sh. Mahesh Kumar Jain, The ACIT, Vs. R.D. Mittal Hospital City Road, Central Circle, Madanganj, Kishangarhg. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ADOPJ4253D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 651/JP/17 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke The DCIT, Sh. Mahesh Kuma…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirakesh Kumar Garg, Vs. Dcit, G-15, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle-12, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadpg0991M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…ason that no records of such income are kept in a meticulous manner. Generally, no person usually keeps the evidences of undisclosed income which has not been recorded in the regular books of account. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah 215 CTR 493 has held that assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement u/s 132(4) and paid due tax thereon, he was entitled to immunity from penalty according to explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is important to note that in that particular section has the requirement of specifying the manner of earning undisclosed income.…

271(l)(c). In CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (215 CTR 493) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax