CIT-2 v. M/s Sharad Fibres and Yarns Processors Ltd.

40 ITD 91Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#24845 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT-2 v. M/s Sharad Fibres and Yarns Processors Ltd.

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 953/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. In a recently decided matter by the Honorable Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT-2 Vs M/s Sharad Fibres and Yarns Processors Ltd. reported in (2016) 40 ITD 91 (Bom.) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. It was held in following cases that agreed addition to income to purchase peace cannot amount to an admission constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 952/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. In a recently decided matter by the Honorable Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT-2 Vs M/s Sharad Fibres and Yarns Processors Ltd. reported in (2016) 40 ITD 91 (Bom.) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. It was held in following cases that agreed addition to income to purchase peace cannot amount to an admission constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 951/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. In a recently decided matter by the Honorable Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT-2 Vs M/s Sharad Fibres and Yarns Processors Ltd. reported in (2016) 40 ITD 91 (Bom.) that penalty should not be imposed where the error/mistake is bonafide. It was held in following cases that agreed addition to income to purchase peace cannot amount to an admission constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings:- CIT Vs. Girish Devchand Rajani (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) CIT Vs MM Gujamgadi (2007) 162…