CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini

169 ITR 33High Court1988#11181 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271AABSection 37(1)Section 69ASection 69CSection 274

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271aabnon-compete feedeletion of penaltywholly and exclusively for businesssection 271aabcorporate guaranteebusiness expediencydumb documentssection 271aasection 271apenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…s for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very addition can be raised at the penalty stage. Penalty cannot be built upon a legally infirm base; thus, where sectio…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 889/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

…s for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very addition can be raised at the penalty stage. Penalty cannot be built upon a legally infirm base; thus, where sectio…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…s for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very addition can be raised at the penalty stage. Penalty cannot be built upon a legally infirm base; thus, where sectio…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 872/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'F' Bench M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited Summary Of Penalty Appeals Sr. No. Nature Of Addition/ Disallowance Ay 2011-12 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2013-14 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2015-16 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2017-18 U/S 271Aab Ay 2018-19 U/S 271Aab (Amt In Inr) Total Addition Made U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

…s for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very addition can be raised at the penalty stage. Penalty cannot be built upon a legally infirm base; thus, where sect…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…s for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very addition can be raised at the penalty stage. Penalty cannot be built upon a legally infirm base; thus, where sectio…

Mothukuri Somabrahmam, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 132/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ITA No.126&132 /Vizag/2017 Mothukuri Somabrahmam, VSKP आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.126/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, Central Circle-2 Mothukuri Somabrahmam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [PAN No.ADOPM6005C] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.132/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asses…

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax., Visakhapatnam vs. Sri M. Somabrahmam, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 126/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ITA No.126&132 /Vizag/2017 Mothukuri Somabrahmam, VSKP आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.126/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, Central Circle-2 Mothukuri Somabrahmam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [PAN No.ADOPM6005C] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.132/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asses…

Mina Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta & Sanjeev Kwatra, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…) 89 Taxman 509 (Mad.) " Sant Das Nihal Chand (1996) 135 CTR 174 (Raj.) " Navnitlal Pochalal (1995) 213 ITR 69 (Guj.) " Nuruddin and Bros. (1990) 1985 ITR 481 (Cat) " Gridharlal Soni (1989) 179 ITR 111 (Cal) 4 Mina Gandhi " Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (1988) 169 ITR 33 (Bom) " Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) " M. George & Bros. (1986) 160 ITR 511 (Ker) " Smt. Hema Malini (1993) 45 TTJ 77 (Bom) (AT) 5. It was further submitted that the AO has not given a clear finding as to whether the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The reliance was placed on the f…

Options Developrs and Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ce Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 7129/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 132Section 271A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & ACIT, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAAFO6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Su…

CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax