What is A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT authority for?

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not attracted if the assessee offers a bonafide explanation, even though the distinction between concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars can be thin or overlap.

How many judgments cite A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT (238 ITR 415), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 133A, Section 139(5), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 250.

A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT (238 ITR 415)

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…h Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble plea on behalf of the assessee that penalty had been initiated for concealment of income while had been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of thereof was not correct since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had levied penalty because the assessee concealed his income…

Associated Machinery Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…205 ITR 607. Addl.CIT vs. Lakshmi Industries and cold storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 8 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. ITR 492. Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT (All) 232 ITR 588 CIT vs. Md. WarasatHussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415 CIT vs. Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 CIT vs. Svvarup Cold Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. Ratan…

ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Rushabh Vatika, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3431/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him," Reliance in this respect is placed on the following decisions: (i) A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj) - whereby the Hon'ble High Court held that "the word 'inaccurate particulars' would cover both falsity in final figure as also constituent elements, which are inaccurate in some specific or definite respect, whether in constituent or subordinate items of income or end result. Therefore, any concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income…

M/S. J Kumar -Rps Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/MUM/2019[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5081/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. J. Kumar –Rps Joint Venture, C-113, Shyam Kamal, Agarwal Market, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057 Pan: Aabtj1167E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit Central Circle -5(1), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 271(1)(c)

…e additions are made on estimations. The CIT(A) has drawn support from the following decisions to wreck the argument of assessee:- (i) Addl. CIT vs. Chandrakantha, 295 ITR 607(MP) (ii) CIT vs. Md. Warasat Hussain, 171 ITR 405(Pat), (iii)AM Shah & Co. Vs. CIT,238 ITR 415(Guj) (iv) CIT vs. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad) None of the judgments referred by CIT(A) is from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.,88 ITR 192 has held that where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that 4 construction which favours the a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as infructuous owing to the adjudication on merits of the case

ITA 747/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Vs M/S Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch5556J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 271(1)(c), a presumption of deliberate concealment has to be raised. 13. He also relied on the following case laws: " Addl. CIT Vs Chandrakantha and Another (MP) 205 ITR 607 " CIT Vs Md. Warasat Hussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 " A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 238 ITR 415 " CIT Vs Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad.) 219 ITR 157 14. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. We have gone through the Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) deals with penalty in respect of adjustment on account of transfer pricing. The provisions of the section read as under: “[Explanation 7.—Wher…

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)

…that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Similar view has been expressed in the case of A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415. The question of ‘onus’ is of primary and added importance in legal acrimony. This was the position before the amendment was introduced in 1976. ‘Mens rea’ was an important ingredient for the imposition of penalty. The position of law on or after 1.4.1976, is that where, in respect of any item of credit, a) the assessee fails to offer an explanat…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Similar view has been expressed in the case of A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415. (iii) Further w.e.f. 10.09.1986 amendment has been made in Explanation 1-B to section 271(l)(c). After this amendment further onus has been placed on the assessee to prove that the explanation furnished by him was bonaflde. The position now is that unless and until the assessee substantiates the explanation and proves that such an explanation wa…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…the decision in Manu Engineering Works (supra). In fact, the two limbs, which signify omission and commission respectively, may, in the facts of a case, or considering the explanation furnished, be very thin or even overlap, as held in A.M. Shah v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 415 (Guj), so that nothing in fact turns thereon, and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., if any prejudice stands caused to the assessee. Why, in S. Anandalakshmi (supra), the tribunal cites an example as to how a particular adjustment to the returned income could be, in view of the explanation furnished, hitherto regarde…

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

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

…holding back the issue to escape from it; If genuine bonafide exists, it must be proved by way of an evidence. 4.1.8 In addition to the above, I place reliance on the following rulings: Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of A.M. Shah & Co. v.CIT [1999] 238 ITR 415 [2000] 108 Taxman 137 (Guj) observed that there cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, in terms of provisions of sec. 27l(l)(c) of the Act read with explanation 1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v.…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e books of accounts are rejected. Levy of penalty on cases of estimates have been upheld ( refer Chuharmal vs CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC), Addl. CIT vs Chandrakantha and another 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs Md. Warasat Hussain 171 ITR 405 (Patna), A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj), CIT vs Krishnawamy and Sons 210 ITR 157 (Mad). Levy of penalty will depend on the facts of the case. Here, profits have been suppressed by showing sale of milk in cash in place of sale of milk products. The profit margins in sale of milk products is higher. By claiming sale of milk, lower profits is shown. The appellant is engaged in busin…

A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT

What is A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

Associated Machinery Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Rushabh Vatika, Rajkot

M/S. J Kumar -Rps Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

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

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai