CIT v. Bhagwan Ltd.

168 ITR 846High Court1987#23032 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,375 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagwan Ltd.

JCIT(OSD), Bathinda vs. Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…credits was included. Since that order had been set aside and the 4 I.T.A. No. 251/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 cash credits deleted from the assessment, the consequent order of penalty had been rightly cancelled." (p. 881) CIT v. Bhagwan Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 846 (Cal.) "Held, that the orders of reassessment on the basis of which penalties were levied had been set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, the order of penalty could not stand by itself. The cancellation of penalty was justified." (p. 846) CIT v. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 402 (Cal.) "Where penalty was imposed solely on the basis of a…

Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (3), Jalandhar vs. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur W/O Sh. Kulwant Singh, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 124/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…also not maintainable and ITO v. Gurjeet Kaur required to be deleted. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the following judgments: “(i) K.C Builders vs. ACIT, 265ITR 562 (ii) CIT vs. Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 167 ITR 0880(Pat) (iii) CIT vs. Bhagwan Ltd. 168 ITR 846 (Cat) (iv) CIT vs. Bengal Jute Mills Company Ltd. 174 ITR 402 (Cal) (v) CIT vs. Madanlal Sohanlal 176 ITR 189 (Cal) (vi) CIT vs. Bedi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 183 ITR 59 (Kar) (vii) CIT vs. Roy Durlabhaji 211 ITR 470 (Raj)” 4. We have heard both the sides and perusal of the record. Admittedly, in this case the addition has been deleted in the quantum…

K Vrushali, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. Pan No. Agypk5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…ssessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set aside by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as held in the case of CIT v. Bhagwan Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 846, 848 (Cal); CIT v. Ram Lal Manohar Lal (1986) Taxation 82 (3)-450 (Del). Thus the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted. 11. In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 15/Mum/2011 is allowed for statistical purposes and in ITA No. 3667/Mum/2014 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 28/09/2018. (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai…