CIT v. Dr. A. Mohd. Abdul Khadir

260 ITR 650High Court2003#24067 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. A. Mohd. Abdul Khadir

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)

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

…Mad) it was held that the though the assessee has filed a revised return, unless the assessee can show that the same was filed voluntarily, penalty was imposable for concealment of income. In CIT vs. Dr. A. Mohd. Abdul Khadir (2003) 183 CTR (Mad) 543 : (2003) 260 ITR 650 (Mad) penalty under s. 271 (1) (c) was held justified in spite of filing of revised return when such revised return I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 could not be said to be voluntary in view of facts that it was filed after search operations had taken place and after the accountant of assessee had made admission about concealment. In P.C. Joseph & Bros.…

Surabi Bullion, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…12.03 lakhs, i.e., on account of the understatement aforesaid. The said return can, by no stretch of imagination, be regarded as either voluntary or revised – of which being voluntary is an essential ingredient (ref: CIT vs Dr. A. Mohd. Abdul Khadir [2003] 260 ITR 650 (Mad)), with, rather, the law deeming the assessee under such circumstances to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). 6. The only question therefore that arises is as to the basis of the dropping of the penalty proceedings, after initiating the same, by the AO, and for which we…

Nadeem Abdul Sattar Lakdwala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.773/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Nadeem Abdul Sattar Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Lakdawala, Income Tax- Central V. B-201, Leo Apartment, Circle 36, 24 Th Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Kohinoor Chs, Mumbai. Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapl4893N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(l)

…a partner. Further, assessee has not furnished any reasonable cause as to why the audit of any of these firms got delayed. Therefore, the explanation furnished by the AR cannot be relied upon. ITA 773/Mum/2014 4 (c) In case of Dr. Mohd. Abdul Khadir (2003)260 ITR 650 (Mad), it has been held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied if return is filed after detection of concealed income. 4. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the assessee's case on these grounds is found fit for imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income. The minimum penalty (being 100% of the tax sought t…