CIT v. Kailash Crockery House

235 ITR 544High Court1999#11329 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Also reported as

107 Taxmann 386

Judgments citing CIT v. Kailash Crockery House

Shri Krishanmohan Ramwadh Shingh, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 11. Likewise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: “For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and A.Y. 2012-13 5 income assessed, the Assessi…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…see was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. 37.4 Likwise the Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544/107 Taxman 386, also in identical circumstances held as under: For the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer enhanced the gross profit rate adopted by the assessee, running crockery business. As a result he made certain trading additions. In view of discrepancy between the income returned and income assessed, the Assessing Officer impos…

M/S Euro Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…etreading & Rubber Industries in DBITA 542/2008 vide order dated 19.09.2013 has held: Merely because books of accounts of the assessee were rejected or estimated addition was made, in our view, no penalty is leviable. b. CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House (1999) 235 ITR 544 (Pat) c. CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) d. CIT v. Whiteline Chemicals (Guj) (Tax Appeal No. 496/2102) dated 15.01.2013 e. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj) f. CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) g. CIT v. Aero Traders (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Delhi) h. CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation…

CIT v. Kailash Crockery House (235 ITR 544) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax