AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT v. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke

142 TTJ 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#7663 most cited

What is AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT v. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke authority for?

Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in a return attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The explanation offered for such inaccuracies must be bonafide and substantiated to avoid penalty.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

AM Shah Vs CIT · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · inaccurate particulars · furnishing inaccurate particulars · bona fide explanation · substantiated explanation · return of income

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT v. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 42/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 41/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 40/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 39/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 66/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

ITA 170/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 167/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 97/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 163/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 143/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

The Dy. CIT- Cir.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfilds Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 152/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome in the return. The explanation offered by the appellant company is neither bonafide nor substantiated. Reliance is placed in the decision of AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke 125 ITR 624; ALIT Vs. Khanna Annadhnam 142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the a…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…s prevailing. " In the following decisions, preparation of monthly trading account and additions based on inferences drawn therefrom have been disapproved/ deleted: " CIT V. Hindustan Mills and Electrical Stores: 232 ITR 421 (MP) ACIT V. Mercury Rubber Mills: 142 TTJ 1 (Del) " The following facts further supports the case of the assessee: - GP and NP rates for the current year were better than the corresponding rates for the immediately preceding year (refer page 1 of paperbook); - Assessee is undisputedly in business of export and the entire profit is exempt under section 80HHC of the Act. There is, therefore, n…

AM Shah Vs. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT v. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke (142 TTJ 1) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax