How many judgments cite CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah (204 ITR 462), spanning 2001 to 2023.

CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah

204 ITR 462High Court1993#3395 most cited

What is CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah authority for?

The imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically justified merely because additions were made to income, even if accepted by the assessee, without further evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · addition · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · deemed addition · explanation · satisfaction of ITO · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

6 DTR 64

Issues it is cited on

levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 143 section 14 section 143(3)business interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah

M/S. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1660/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…of the Act, meaning thereby it is a deemed addition. 10. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the levy of penalty on the basis of this deemed addition relied on decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Dharmchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 wherein identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 11. We have perused the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Dharmchand L. Shah (supra) wherein it is held that in case the assessee fails to give an explanation or the explanation given by the assessee is not to the satisfaction of the ITO the addition made…

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIPAVANKUMARGADALE,JUDICIALMEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 known as C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.AABCE0443R Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Smt. Sonia Kumar Sr. AR Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of 14.10.2022 Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order…

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…e in this regard are as under:- a) Ananthram Veersinghaiah & Co. [1980] (123 ITR 457 (Supreme Court) b) CIT vs. Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass (1995)214 1TR 726 (Delhi HC) c) CIT vs JK Synthetics Ltd (1996)219 ITR 267 (Delhi HC) d) CIT vs Dharmachand L. Shah (1993)204 ITR 462 (Bombay HC) 11 e) CIT vs Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (Allahabad HC) IV) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) cannot be a reason to impose penalty under section 271(l)(C)of the Act. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT v. AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd [2012] 18 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi High…

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…uiry, the base of addition itself is not sustainable, the levy of penalty subsequent thereto, repeating to make no inquiry nor calling addressed of the assessee's, cash creditors the same is also not sustainable in view of the following judicial guidelines 1. 204 ITR 462(Bom.) Dharamchand L. Shah 2. 142ITR747(Mad.) Saubhagmal Mahaveerchand 3. 16 TTJ 491 (Ahd.) Sharadchandra C. Patel 7. More ever also when there is no specific satisfaction in original as well as reassessment order, notice issued consequently itself: 1. 277 ITR 337(Del.) Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2. 278 ITR 32(Del.) Auto Lampes Ltd. 3. 41 Taxman 49…

SHRI BHANUPRASAD D. TRIVEDI (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…gs are separate and Page 5 of 9 Asstt. Year 2005-06 distinct. Findings in the assessment proceedings do not operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. It was so held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah reported in 204 ITR 462 (Bom). The relevant extract of the order reads as under: “Further, it is by now a trite law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c…

VYANJAN HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7445/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Blem/S Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcv7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCV7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha Date of Hearing : 12.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is fil…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ent of income] iii) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust, (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403(AII) [where the difference between the income returned and the income assessed was due to 'disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee] iv) CIT vs. Dhamchand 1. Shah,(1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69(Bombay) [penalty cannot be sustained merely on the grounds that certain additions ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. were made and the same were accepted by the assessee without invoking the Explanation to Section Uls 271 (1)(c)]. v) CIT vs. Inden Bislers (1999) 240 ITR 943, 946, 947 (Madras)[tribunal…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SRAVANTHI KODURU, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6796/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Mahajan, CA, Ms. Jyoti Saxena, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if fur…

SURESH DUTT MALHOTRA,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2575/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv., Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F(1)

…ssessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if fu…

M/S MANN & HUMMEL FILTER PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 798/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…u/s.271 is not necessary. He relied on the following observations of the Court:- Page 11 of 21 “8. The Bench of the High Court at Bombay that delivered the judgment in the case of P.M. Shah (supra) followed it in the case of CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah [1993] 204 ITR 462. It is said, "……….. in the absence of invoking the Explanation specifically, the burden would remain on the revenue to bring the assessee's case within the mischief of the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. We find it difficult to accept as correct the two judgments aforementioned. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is a part o…

SANJAY NAMDEO BHARTI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Verma

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…Eswarsa and Sons reported as 83 ITR 369 has held that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two independent and separate proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharamchand L. Shah reported as 204 ITR 462 has held : “It is by now trite law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Thus, any addition made during assessment i…

ALPEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…sessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty 5 proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if furth…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

…ty proceedings are concerned. For the above proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Banaras Textorium Vs. OT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All.) 15 I.T.A. No. 1352/Hyd/14 Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd., Hyd. (ii) CIT VS. DharamchandL Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom.) (iii) National Textile Corporation Vs. CIT(2000) 164 OR 209 (Guj.) 19.1 In the given case, the assessee has claimed development expenses by mistake due to wrong understanding of accountant. This was not the dispute before appellate authorities as the same was accepted and paid tax dues during the assessment proceeding stage itself. With r…

M/S. R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5233/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…clusive. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings as was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah reported in 204 ITR 462 (Bom). Further, in Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence, they do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” 5.2 It is well settled that during penalty proceedings, there has to be a reappraisal of the very same material on the ba…

SH. ROHIT KOCHHAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6549/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Sistani, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. GROZ NET INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6241/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Groz Net Industries, Vs Acit, C-717, New Friends Colony, Circle-22(1), New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaafg8454E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms Rano Jain Ca Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.5.2017 Order

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80H

RAMA KAPUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6484/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty 7 I.T.A. No.6484/Del/2013 Assessment Year 2006-07 proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on t…

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…t proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in the assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if furt…

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2