CIT v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas

34 ITR 98High Court1958#15657 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas

The DCIT-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ding in penalty proceedings and the Tribunal, on consideration of unreliable state of evidence regarding concealment, was justified in deleting penalty. 8. The scope of penalty proceedings was considered by this Court in CIT vs. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas (1958) 34 ITR 98 (Bom)-, where it was pointed out that the proceedings under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, in their very nature are penal proceedings and the gist of the offence under s. 28(1)(c) is that the assessee concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the Department must esta…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ssee constitutes income is on the revenue. The assessee is not required to prove his innocence. This was held, considering the old provisions of section 28(1)(c) of Indian I.T. Act, 1922, by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gokuldas Harivallabhdas 34 ITR 98 which was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 SC. It was also held by the Apex Court that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and, therefore, findings recorded in assessment proceedings, though may be relevant, but 21 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO would not be conclusive. Mere rejection of exp…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…-09 & 2009-10) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., The appellant is not required to prove his innocence. This was held, considering the old provisions of Section 28(1){c) of Indian I.T.Act, 1922, by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gokuldas Harivailabhdas 34 ITR 98, which was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 (SC). It was also held by the Apex Court that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and therefore findings recorded in assessment proceedings, though may be relevant, but would not be conclusive. Mere rejection of explanation of appellant in assessment proceedings…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…-09 & 2009-10) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., The appellant is not required to prove his innocence. This was held, considering the old provisions of Section 28(1){c) of Indian I.T.Act, 1922, by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gokuldas Harivailabhdas 34 ITR 98, which was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 (SC). It was also held by the Apex Court that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and therefore findings recorded in assessment proceedings, though may be relevant, but would not be conclusive. Mere rejection of explanation of appellant in assessment proceedings…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…-09 & 2009-10) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., The appellant is not required to prove his innocence. This was held, considering the old provisions of Section 28(1){c) of Indian I.T.Act, 1922, by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gokuldas Harivailabhdas 34 ITR 98, which was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 (SC). It was also held by the Apex Court that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and therefore findings recorded in assessment proceedings, though may be relevant, but would not be conclusive. Mere rejection of explanation of appellant in assessment proceedings…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…te of Orissa7). In England also it has never been doubted that such proceedings are penal in character; Fattorini (Thomas) (Lancashire) Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioner\005" 21. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Gokuldas Harivallabhas, [34 ITR 98], as regard onus of proof, it was opined : "That the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and, therefore, the Department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee." 22. As regard the question as to whethe…

CIT v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas (34 ITR 98) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax