CIT v. Hiralal Doshi

383 ITR 19High Court2016#17802 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hiralal Doshi

Smt. Ragini Jain, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1130/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of levying the penalty but the circumstances must show that there was conscious concealment of income or conscious furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Hiralal Doshi, 383 ITR 19 (Bom.). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee made a bogus claim of long term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Act in the return filed. The AO conducted an enquiry and referred the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department, Kolkata where these transactions were found to be bo…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Imperial Developers, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat Vs. Imperial Developers /ITA No.1992/Ahd/2016/AY: 2013-14 Page 1 of 11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ीमती िदवा िसंह, "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.DPS School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [PAN: AADFI 5694 R…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…: (i) Price Waterhouse Cooper (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT-(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) (ii) DIT Vs. Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund (2013) 35 taxmann.com 265 (Bom). (iii) CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Hiralal Doshi (2016) 383 ITR 19 (Bom). (v) CIT Vs. Stoll India (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 263 (Bom). (vi) CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 339 (Del). (vii) CIT Vs. Royale Manor Hotels & Ind. Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 491 (viii) DCIT Vs. Khanna Industrial Pipes (P.) Ltd. (2014) 35 ITR (T) 314 (Mum) (ix) ACIT Vs. Raj Multiplex (P.) Ltd. (2010) 6 ITR (T) 76…

Rekha Bhupendra Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274rSection 54Section 54F

…r filing inaccurate particulars. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that non-striking of relevant clause shows a non-application of mind by AO. The ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v/s Hiralal Doshi (383 ITR 19(Bom.), CIT v/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 227 (Bom.), decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)], Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v/s. CIT – [(2012) 304 ITR 306 (SC)], DIT(IT) v/s. Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund- [2013) 35 taxmann.com 265 (Bom)], CIT v/s. S…

Smt. Romi Lahiri, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…ve been careful but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Lastly. the decision reported in CIT v. HIRALAL DOSHI [2016] 383 ITR 19 (Bom) to demonstrate that when there is no concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars, the authorities reaching a conclusion prima facie that the income could be regarded as long term capital gain deleting penalty is a possible view. Arguing thus, learned counsel for the assessee prayed to delete the penalty. 6. Learned DR, on th…