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 415High Court1999#2209 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT · 238 ITR 415 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · bonafide explanation · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · overlap inaccurate particulars and concealment · Gujarat High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133A Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 54F

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 43b(f)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)section 211 section 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)house property income section 140 full and true disclosure section 271(l)(c)additional depreciation

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…hallenge, be fatal to the proceedings? The difference between 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 (refer: A.M. Shah v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 415 (Guj)). The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), it was further explained, could in either case be levied only where there is a failure to disclose fully and truly particulars of his income by the assessee, and that there could be no straitjacket formula for ascertaining the two charges. In the instant case, in fact, both the satisfaction as well as the levy…

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…365 ITR 304 (Del) (ii). CIT Vs. Smt. CHandrakanta (1994) 205 ITR 607 (MP) (iii). Addl. CIT Vs. Lakshmi Industries & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 492 (All) (iv). CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (2007) 291 ITR 202 (Guj) It was averred by the ld. D.R, that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any force and did not merit acceptance, thus, the same may be…

Sameera Shaikh, New Panvel vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1327/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Vallabhdas D.Parmar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274(1)

…he notice u/s 271(1)(c) and also to ensure that she is not put to peril of answering against something which never was specifically determined as her default. We may refer here to the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415, 433 (Guj). The same issue also arose in CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No. 953, 1097, 1154 & 1226/2014, before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. We extract below the decision dated 05.01.2017 of the Hon’ble High Court: “5. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that there is no difference between furnishing of inaccurate particulars of in…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…ion of the Ld. DR is that even though the income was estimated, the penalty could be levied and for this purpose he relied on the following High Court judgments: 1)CIT(Addl.) vs. Smt. Chandrakanta and Another (205 ITR 607) (MP) 2) A.M. Shah & Company vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) 4.1 The addition was estimated by the Assessing Officer on the amount deposited into the assessee’s bank account. The Assessing Officer adopted the flat rate of 0.25% as income of the assessee on the total deposits made in his bank account. The Assessing Officer did not record the finding of fraud or gross or willful negligence on the par…

Shri Nitesh G.Thakkar, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 215/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediain "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year : 2008-09 Shri Nitesh G. Thakkar Ito, Ward-1 Patan. Prop: M/S.Deep Cotton Industries Vs Jaska Road, Valmikinagar Harij-384240; Dist : Patan. Pan : Adwpt 3924 H

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…an be no reasons to take a different view in the matter of penalty. The ld.DR submitted that action of the AO and the CIT(A) towards imposition of penalty with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT, 238 ITR 415 and exhorted that penalty is leviable where discrepancy of such nature has been detected giving rise to the concealment of income, and in the light of falsity discovered in the course of survey and post survey inquiries. The ld.DR finally concluded that estimation have been made only to determine quantification of concealment. The fact of conceal…

Girdhar Gopal Lahoti, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kishangarh

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

ITA 682/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri R. A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 211Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)(a)Section 69A

…de by the AO was sustained by this Tribunal. The ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below as well as the decisions as under:- • CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta 205 ITR 607 • Shushil Kumar Sarad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 • A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 8 Shri Girdhar Gopal Lahoti vs. ITO 147 of the Act the AO made a total addition of Rs. 22,45,222/- on account of three issues. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made…

Shri Kirtikumar Vasantbhai Thakkar, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3043/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

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

…proceedings or before the AO. In view of the above, it is held that the AO is justified in levying penalty of Rs.5,85,773/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relying, on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of A. K. Shah & Co. vs CIT reported in 238 ITR 415. The penalty levied is therefore held justified and is hereby confirmed.” 4. We have heard rival contention and perused the material on record. The Ld. Counsel has referred the decision of the Hon,ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT-III v Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd and we find that the facts of the case of the assessee are distinguishabl…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…d. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that penalty can be levied even on a estimate basis for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157, A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) and CIT vs Mohammad Warasat Hussain, 177 ITR 405 (Pat.). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, declared income of `6,24,135/- in its return filed on 30/09/2009. A survey action was carried out u/s 133A of the Act at…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4978/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5865/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Oriental Bank of Commerce, vs. A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1), Central Accounts Officer, New Delhi. Plot No. 5, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon. (PAN: AAACO 0191M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA Respondent by : None(application rejected) Date of hearing : 07.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee, M/s.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Navneet Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: None PresentFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…income by ignoring the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Chandrakantha and another (MP) 205 ITR 607; Addl. CIT vs. Lakshmi Industries and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 ITR 492; CIT vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405; AM Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return income of Rs. 28,28,749/- which included the short term capital gain of Rs. 2,33,000/- The case was taken up for scrutiny and it was found that the assessee has sold a property at C-96, Chander Nagar, Ghazaiabad UP for a sale consideration of Rs. 33,50,000/-. The sale co…