How many judgments cite CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji (85 ITR 77), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 148, Section 11, Section 12, Section 12AA, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji

85 ITR 77High Court1972#3403 most cited

What is CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji authority for?

When an appellate authority alters or modifies the original basis for initiating penalty proceedings, the authority that initiated the penalty proceedings loses jurisdiction to continue those proceedings based on the appellate authority's findings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji · section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · altered basis · appellate authority · jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 11 Section 12 Section 12AA Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 income-tax officer section 271(1)(c)section 27 company section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

…from non-members, the basis of determination of income that was changed by the Hon'ble ITAT has not been considered by the A.O at the time of levying of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of CIT vs Lakhdirlalji (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj.) and CIT vs Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 416. In both the cases it has been held that when the original basis of initiation of penalty proceedings is altered or modified by the appellate authority, the authority initiating the penalty proceedings has no jurisdiction, thereafter to proceed on the basis of findings of the appellate auth…

INDIAN CHRONICLE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…A); ✓ CIT v. State Bank of India - ITA 129/2016 (Annex. B); ✓ Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory-359 ITR 565 (Kar); ✓ MultivisionInfotech P. Ltd. - 88 taxman..com 874 (Ahd); ✓ Dharni Developers - 61 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai); ✓ CIT us. LakhdhirLalji - (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj); ✓ R. M. Bhatia vs. CIT-(1992) 193 ITR 379 (Guj); ✓ H. Lakshminarayana-61 taxmann.com 373 (Bang.); ✓ Autoriders India (P) Ltd.-191 TTJ 376 (Mumbai) 6. The Ld. Sr. Counsel has drawn our attention to the penalty notice dated 30.11.2009 issued by the AO, a copy of which was filed in a paper book. He submitted that from the said notice, it was e…

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

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

…e mentioned judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, held that “….The Allahabad High Court in the cases of Shadiram Balmukand [1972] 84 ITR 183 and Dwarka Prasad Subhas Chandra [1974] 94 ITR 154 and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 have held that when the original basis of initiation of the penalty proceeding is altered or modified by the appellate authority, the authority initiating the penalty proceedings has no jurisdiction thereafter to proceed on the basis of the findings of the appellate authority. These cases have neither been distinguished by Mr. B.L. Pal nor has he c…

VINOD GUGNANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…71,12,909/-. He submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer does not call for levy of penalty. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:- (i) New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Gujrat) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj.) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Petropruducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (v) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403 (All.) (vi) Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. Ito (ITAT Lucknow) ITA No.486/LKW/2016. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. Vinod Gugnani v…

SHRI SHIVAJI DATTATRAY SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…circumstances, the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the order imposing penalty was passed. In such scenario, the penalty imposed shall not be justified as held in the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) (ii) Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 54 (Gau) (iii) K. M. Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379 (Guj) Therefore, on the context of principles of natural justice also, 5 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane such penalty cannot be imposed, if there is ambiguity in arriving at satisfaction by the AO. The basis of issuance of notice should rema…

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…na Anvar “ Learned counsel also read before us the decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 and K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379, in which the ratio of the decision of this court in Lakhadir Lalji’s case [1972] 85 ITR 77, was reiterated. There can obviously be no dispute about a proposition that if the very basis for the penalty proceedings against the assessee initiated by the Income-tax Officer disappeared, then the penalty imposed on a different footing altogether cannot be sustained.” 10. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotto…

KANERIYA SAND AND AGGREGATES PVT.LTD,SURAT vs. DY.CIT, VALSAD

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 186/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Kaneriya Sand & The Dy. Commissioner Of Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs U-6, Jk Towers, Ring Road, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Surat. Pan : Aadck8622N Applicant Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…e. Therefore, the assessing officer proceeded to levy penalty without application of specific charges against the assessee. To support his contention the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Lakhdhir Lalji (85 ITR 77 Guj) and ACIT Vs Dipesh M Panjwani (ITA No. 6330 /Mum/2012). 6. On the merit of the case the ld. AR for the assessee submits that the addition in the assessment is made under section 41 as there was no cessation of liability in earlier year. The ld AR for the assessee has taken us through the contents of the assessment order and would submits that…

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.296/RJT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 M/s. Ajay Salt & Chemicals, I.T.O, Vs. Opp. Marketing Yard, Ward-1(3), Bhavnagar Road, Veraval. Una. PAN: AALFA1644B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Written Submission : Revenue by Shri Anil Kumar Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PE…

SHRI SEMADRI BHAGWAN PRADHAN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 307/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3133/Ahd/2014 & 307/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Semadri Bhagvan Pradhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), 176, Indira Nagar, Hira Baug, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat [Pan: Akspp 3368 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 09.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 08-09-2014 & The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)’] Dated 23-12-2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Respectively. 2. Additional Grounds During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds, Which Are As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Enhancing The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.40,81,465/- U/S.251(10) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts Treated As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 251(1)Section 251(10)

…ncome there is no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore penalty imposed by the AO is not sustainable in law. The ld. counsel further placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj.), wherein the penalty proceedings having been initiated against the assessee on the basis of concealment of income and imposed on the basis of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of as income is held not to be justified. The ld. counsel also relied in the case of CIT v. Samson Perichery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) Per contra, the ld. DR supporte…

SEMADRI BHAGVAN PRADHAN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3133/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Section 251(1)Section 251(10)

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…th of the assessee’s explanation, in appellate proceedings. That would not however disturb the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing or the other authority imposing the penalty. This would also meet the assessee’s reliance on CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalj [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj). Rather, the basis for stating in Manu Engineering Works (supra) that the charge while levying the penalty is to be specific, as would be apparent from the reading of its order, is on the basis of the penalty proceedings being criminal or quasi criminal in nature, a notion, never 15 ITA Nos. 594/Asr/2014 (AY 1997-98) H. K. Gandotra v. ITO…

ACIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KIMPLAS PIPING SYSTEMS LTD, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1187/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit-15(2)(1) M/S Kimplas Piping Systems Ltd. Room No. 357, B-20, Additional Midc Area, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ambad, Nashik-422010. M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacg3404H Vs. Mumbai-400020. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)For Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

…has rightly deleted the penalty. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT Vs Samson Perincheri (ITA No.1154 of 2014), Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Lakadhir Lalji (85 ITR 77 Gujarat). 9. In fifth alternative and without prejudice submission the learned AR submits that the view taken by assessing officer in denying the deduction under section 35(2AB) to the assessee is a possible view (though contrary to the decisions relied by assessee), still the issue is debatable issue, therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) is…

SONY DADC MANUFACTURING (INDIA ) P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…om HC ) 392 ITR 4 dated 05.01.2017 • CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (Kar HC) 73 taxmann.com 241 dated 23. 11. 20 15 • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) • K.M. Bhatia vs. CIT 62 TAXMAN 430 (GUJ.) • CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (GUJ.) • Pr.CITvs.BaisettyRevathi(APHC)ITANo684of2016datedl3.7.2017 • Shri S. Narendrakumar & Co. vs. ACIT- ITA No.7334/Mum/2016 dated 22.03.2019 • ACIT vs. BhushanKamalnayanVora [2017] 60 ITR(T) 82 (Mumbai -Trib.) • Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA 1596& 1597 /M/2014 dated 01.09.2017 • Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT - ITA No. 1261/Mum/20…

SONALI D. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17 (3) ERSTWHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 12(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADITYA LANDCON PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2829/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(A)’s order, the basis of nature of amount of Rs. 40 lacs changed and hence the levy of penalty on old basis by Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. The Ld. AR relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Lakdhir Lal Ji 85 ITR 77. 4. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the penalty but could not controvert the fact that the appeal filed by the Revenue is having low tax effect as per Circular dated 03 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and the appeal of the 3…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…iculars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If proceedings are initiated on charge of concealment then penalty cannot be levied on the charge of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and vice versa (CIT- v- Lakhdhirlalji 85 ITR 77 (Guj.). Thus, there must be a clear finding about the charge of penalty. It is incumbent upon the AO to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such finding, the order would be bad in law - Manu Engg. Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj.), New Sorathia Engg. Co. 28…

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3743/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…The position of law in this is well settled and reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT in 282 ITR 642, CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works in 122 ITR 306 and CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji in 85 ITR 77. 14. This view has been again reiterated also by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra). Thus viewed from any angle we find that levy of penalty in this case is not justified and the impugned penalty order is illegal. 14 Satpal Saini Therefore, we have no other option but to delete the same. Thus…

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…he ground used by the Commissioner, in his order under section 263 dated 30-3-1990, the impugned order under section 263 cannot be sustained." The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, though rendered in penalty proceedings in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lal Ji [1972] 85 ITR 77, cancelled the penalty by giving similar reasonings. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below : "Held, that the penalty proceedings had been commenced against the assessee on a particular footing, viz. concealment of particulars of income but the final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing altogether viz.…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…ment Company Ltd. the Commissioner, in his order under section 263 dated 30-3-1990, the impugned order under section 263 cannot be sustained." The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, though rendered in penalty proceedings in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lal Ji [1972] 85 ITR 77, cancelled the penalty by giving similar reasonings. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below : "Held, that the penalty proceedings had been commenced against the assessee on a particular footing, viz. concealment of particulars of income but the final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing altogether viz.…

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…ate authorities does not amount to satisfaction as contemplated u/s 271 of the Act. The direction issued by ITAT amounts to satisfaction of ITAT and not that of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lal Ji 85 ITR 77 (Guj) 2. CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj) 3. Gujarat Credit Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 116 TTJ 619 (Ahd) 4. CIT vs. Anand Bazar Patrika 116 ITR 416 5. CIT vs. Shadi Ram Bal Mukund 84 ITR 183 As far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the penalty proceeding are independent proceedings from Assessment…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2