(a) Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. Income Tax Officer

117 Taxmann.com 490Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#11892 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also reported as

183 ITD 313

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 145(3)Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 145(3)section 271(1)section 145levy of penaltysection 271section 271(1)(c)section 27

Judgments citing (a) Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ncome. It is only an estimation shorn of any certainty or accuracy." Applying the ratio to the facts of the Appellant, it is submitted that the penalty which is based on an estimated disallowance is liable to be deleted. 1. Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. ITO [2021] 183 ITD 313 (Rajkot) 2. ACIT v. Shivam Projects [2018] 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 3. DCIT v. D. Nitin & Co. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 146 (Ahd.) Hence, it is submitted that viewed from any angle, the penalty of Rs. 21,005 is totally uncalled for and liable to be deleted. 4. I have carefully considered the penalty order, the grounds of appeal, and the written subm…

Income Tax Officier- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ncome. It is only an estimation shorn of any certainty or accuracy." Applying the ratio to the facts of the Appellant, it is submitted that the penalty which is based on an estimated disallowance is liable to be deleted. 1. Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. ITO [2021] 183 ITD 313 (Rajkot) 2. ACIT v. Shivam Projects [2018] 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 3. DCIT v. D. Nitin & Co. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 146 (Ahd.) Hence, it is submitted that viewed from any angle, the penalty of Rs. 21,005 is totally uncalled for and liable to be deleted. 4. I have carefully considered the penalty order, the grounds of appeal, and the written subm…

Hetal Ramanlal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1274/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Hetal Ramanlal Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 44-A, Suryapur Society, Ward-1(2)(2), Opp. Jain Temple, Rander Road, Surat Surat-395002 Current Jurisdiction Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat [PAN No.AFSPS3691C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR 26.03.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1062&1068/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Borda Brothers, Ward-3(3)(1), 8/9, Saurastra Daimonsds, Surat Behind Gitanjali, Varachha Road, Surat [PAN No.AAEFB0796Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None for Assessee Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR 27.03.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both appeals have been filed by the Departme…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1062&1068/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Borda Brothers, Ward-3(3)(1), 8/9, Saurastra Daimonsds, Surat Behind Gitanjali, Varachha Road, Surat [PAN No.AAEFB0796Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None for Assessee Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR 27.03.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both appeals have been filed by the Departme…

Akm Resorts, Mohali vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 42/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 AKM Resorts, Vs The ACIT, Village – Prabhat, Zirakpur, Circle-5(1), Distt. – Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./PAN /TAN No:AALFA5029N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITP राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR 23.12.2024 तार"ख/Date of He…

Thakorbhai & Company, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. Pan No. Aabft 4392 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. PAN No. AABFT 4392 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Parin Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 19/09/2023 Date of hearing 06/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 06/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is dire…

Shri Gulzar Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Bathinda vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 338/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 337 & 338/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s Gulzar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurbachan Singh, Ward-2(1), Bathinda Grain Market, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda [PAN: AACFM 1332M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impugned…

Shri Gulzar Singh. Gurbachan Singh, Bathinda vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 337/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 337 & 338/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s Gulzar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurbachan Singh, Ward-2(1), Bathinda Grain Market, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda [PAN: AACFM 1332M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impugned…

(a) Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. Income Tax Officer (117 Taxmann.com 490) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax