60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID v. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries

192 ITR 214High Court1991#21722 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing 60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID v. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…inchand v. CIT 6 ITR 534). Further reliance is placed on the following case laws. 1. CIT v. Gates 91 ITR 467 2. Cement Distributors v.CIT 60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID VS ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598 4 CIT v. Vilasben 192 ITR 214 5. CIT v. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 & 6. CIT v. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91. 5.11 In the light of the foregoing discussion and the judicial decisions, penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income amounting to Rs. 13,558/- is hereby confirmed.’’ Section 271B of the Act ‘’5.1 I have carefully gone through the pena…

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…he following cases of jurisdictional High Court:- - Kantilal Manilal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 411 (Guj ): - CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8 (Guj); - CIT v. Namlabhai Bhanabhai [1987] 165 WR 189 (Guj); - CIT v. Vilasben Hasmukhlal Shah (Smt.) [1991] 192 ITR 214 (Guj); - CIT v. Abdulgafur Ahmed Wagmar.[1993] 199 ITR 827 (Guj). 5.5 A conspectus of the Explanation added by the Finance Act 1964 and the subsequent substituted Explanations makes it clear that the statute visualized the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. In essence, the explanati…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ven otherwise, it has been held in various cases that assessing officer is not required to establish any concealment at the time of levy of penalty when the addition made by him in the income attains finality. 9.2 In the case of CIT vs. PREMIER BREWERIES LTD.244 ITR 598(Ker) it was held as below: AO not to establish the concealment...No additional material furnished by the assesses to arrive at different conclusions other than those arrived at the stage of assessment proceedings. Finding of the tribunal held perverse as they were based on same material examined by it earlier. Penalty justified. Here the issue w…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…e not willful and there is no falsehood in their accounts is not acceptable. The A.O. then relying upon the decision given in the case of CIT vs. Gates 91 1TR 467, Cement Distributors vs. CIT 60 ITR 586, CIT vs. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598, CIT vs. Vilasben 192 ITR 214, CIT vs. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 and CIT vs. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91, levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evade so, at Rs. 1,90,84,194/-. 3.3 During the appellate proceedings, appellant have submitted as under: Applicability of provisions of section 94(7) was accepted by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceeding. Accordingl…