CIT v. Dharamshi B. Shah

366 ITR 140High Court2014#20622 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,155 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Dharamshi B. Shah

M/S Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed, while stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 72(2)

…. CIT v. Rasiklal M. Parikh, ITA No.169/2017, judgment dated 19.03.2019, where a contrary view on the same issue has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Dharamshi B. Shah, 366 ITR 140 (Guj). The view taken in the aforesaid decisions was that penalty cannot be deleted on the sole ground that the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed gave rise to substantial question of law and admitted for consideration by the High Court. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as also decisions cited by the ld. counsel for th…

M/S Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed, while stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 267/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 72(2)

…. CIT v. Rasiklal M. Parikh, ITA No.169/2017, judgment dated 19.03.2019, where a contrary view on the same issue has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Dharamshi B. Shah, 366 ITR 140 (Guj). The view taken in the aforesaid decisions was that penalty cannot be deleted on the sole ground that the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed gave rise to substantial question of law and admitted for consideration by the High Court. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as also decisions cited by the ld. counsel for th…

Irm Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-11, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2853/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2853/Ahd/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 54

…emonstrate the bonafide of its action except ex-parte admission of the appeal before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court against the quantum proceedings. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. IRM Trust vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2008-09 Dharanshi V.Shah 366 ITR 140 (Guj.) has held that the admission of appeal is under S.260A per se is inconsequential for determination of imposition of penalty. As we notice that the action of the assessee prima-facie lacks bonafide both on facts as well as on law, the consequences of penalty is inescapable. Therefore, we do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the C…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. CIT-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAKPS 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : S…