ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal

270 ITR 523High Court2004#15511 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 844/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…falls in exception enumerated in para No. (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) applicable in the case wherein search initiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on t…

DCIT 36, Mumbai vs. Sumer5 Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3608/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL/2009 Assessment Years:2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05& 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,....................................Appellant Central Circle-XVI, Kolkata, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 -Vs.- Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury,............................................…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Pratap Properties Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

…re a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and therefore, admitted a larger income for the earlier years on which tax with interest had been paid. F. Rajasthan High Court in the case of ACIT vs Gebilal Kanhaialal reported in (2004) 270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with interest. 8.2. The next aspect is as…

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…re a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and therefore, admitted a larger income for the earlier years on which tax with interest had been paid. G. Rajasthan High Court in the case of ACIT vs Gebilal Kanhaialal reported in (2004) 270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with interest. 8.8. In view of the afores…

DCIT, Cent Cir-I, Kol, Kolkata vs. Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

…re a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and therefore, admitted a larger income for the earlier years on which tax with interest had been paid. G. Rajasthan High Court in the case of ACIT vs Gebilal Kanhaialal reported in (2004) 270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- ITA Nos 1875- 1878/Kol/09-B-AM 12 Deepak Choudhury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had be…