Ajit B. Zota v. ACIT

40 SOT 543Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#17858 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Ajit B. Zota v. ACIT

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…the appellant firm in the returns u/s. 139 filed prior to the date of search. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahabir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 and Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ajit B. Zota Vs ACIT 40 SOT 543. Further, the information about the undisclosed hand loans found during the course of search was unexplained and the said information was not reflected in the books of accounts or the appellant even could not explain ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 17 of 30 the source for extending the said hand loans. Thus, in absence of a search, the said un…

Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 762/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 274Section 54ESection 54G

…n-No penalty Ahmedabad- ITAT-Karnavati Inf. P. Ltd. 193 Taxman 3 issue (XIII) Ahmedabad Guj State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 193 Taxman 26 (Digest) Delhi H.C. Bacardi 206 CTR 250 3. Even Claim is not sustainable in law- No penalty Mumbai ITAT- Ajit B. Zota 40 SOT 543 (AIFTP -1561-(9398) S.C. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. S.C. Reliance Petro products 4. Wrong claim of revenue loss - No concealment Guj H.C. - BTX Chemicals P. Ltd. 288 ITR 796 /205 CTR 252 5. No evidence-Assessee concealed Ahmedabad ITAT- Gruh Finance Ltd. 316 ITR 441 Concealment implies deliberate Act S.C. K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562 6. A…

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…ee in the return was not voluntary. It was admitted after the deep investigation carried on by the Investigation Wing of Mumbai in the case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. The ld. D.R. further cited decision in the case of Ajit B. Zota vs. ACIT (2010) 40 SOT 543 (Mum) to contend that explanation 1 to section 271(1) (c) could be invoked where no bonafide explanation is given by the assessee for not disclosing the claim in original return of income. 13. We have considered the facts and perused the material on record and gone through the assessment order and find that the assessee has not filed any revise…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 1987-88 & 1998-99 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD-II) C/o- Pandya Gandhi & Co. बनाम/ CR-7, Advocates & Solicitors, 4th Floor, Vs. Adore House, Aayakar Bhavan, K. Dubash Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACD5580D ITA NOs.3831 & 3832 /Mum/2009 Asses…

Ramesh D Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5179/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05) M/S Ramesh D Shah, बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of 142, Andheri Industrial Estate, Income Tax. Cc -35, Vs. Off Veera Desai Road, Room No.103, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aacps9581N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.9.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :14.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 3.07.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-41, Mumbai Upholding The Penalty Imposed U/S 271 (1)(C) R.W.S274 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Pertains To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Issue Raised Is Against The Upholding The Penalty On An Income Of Rs.18,50,000/- By The Ld.Cit(A) As Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)

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

…t leviable. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the assessee was not entitled for immunity as per Explanation -5 to section 271 (1)( c ) and wrongly relied on the decision in the case of Ajit B Zota V/s ACIT (40 SOT 543). In defence the ld. AR strongly relied on the following decisions : A) Prem Arora V/s DCIT (Delhi Tribunal) (2012) 24 Taxmann.com 260; B) Vrajlal T Gala (HUF) V/s ACIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 620; C) Yogesh Parikh V/s ACIT in ITA No.6750/Mum/2008 dated 25.7.2012 and D) Unimark Remedies Ltd V/s ACIT in ITA No. 409/Mum/2008 dated 26.9.2012 (Mum Tribu…