CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram

225 ITR 675High Court1997#11339 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram

VINOD RATAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.4246/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) Vinod Ratan Patil v. CIT (A) – 1 Shanti Niwas, Katai Gaon Room No. 29,A-Wing, 6th Floor Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z Kalyan Shil Road Wagle Industrial Estate Dombivili (E) - 421201 Thane, Mumbai - 400604 PAN: AKWPP4159M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Shri. Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMA…

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

ITA 2266/AHD/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR with Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ed penalty which appears that the assessee has accepted the addition made to the returned income and not filed any appeal on these grounds. Here it is to be mentioned that the decision of Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT V. Lalchand Thirth Ram - 225 ITR 675 (Pub) - is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, their Lordships have held that "merely offering an explanation would not absolve the assessee from liability of penalty. It is necessary for the assessee to offer an explanation and substantiate it." Here, the assessee has not substantiate its explanation in respect of disall…

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

ITA 2265/AHD/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 1991-92

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR with Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…IT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432 Mere offering explanation, is not sufficient – Explanation to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. CIT Vs. LalchandTirath Ram (P&H) 225 ITR 675 5.4.2 Apart from the above cases, I would also like to place reliance on two recent case laws:- The Delhi High Court said: in the case of morganFinvest Pvt. Ltd. “… The judgment of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts (Supra) cited on behalf of the assessee has been explained and distinguished by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs…

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 301/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: The Same Are Heard & Disposed Off. 6. It Is Prayed That The Addition Shall Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Rachit GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

…income received in cash of previous years is devoid of merit both on the principal of human probabilities and also on account of being not supported by any documentary evidence. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lalchand Tirath Ram 225 ITR 675 has observed that mere offering explanation is not sufficient - explanation is to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidences. Therefore, the additional evidence is also not sufficient in merits to hold the contention of the assessee. To conclude, it is submitted that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee to your good self is no…

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

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

…; CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, including the jurisdictional High Court, as in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009), to note two. Here it may also be relevant to state that the deeming fiction of Explanation 1 shall apply irrespective of whether the non-returning of income is on 7 ITA Nos. 131/Asr/2018 (AY 2012-13) Malwa Motors v. ITO account of concealment of particulars of income or fu…

SH. RUCHI SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 3 Ruchi Sharma v. ITO ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009). As such, where the assessee renders an explanation which he is able to substantiate, disclosing material facts, no penalty can be imposed where the bona fides of the explanation are not in doubt. In its absence, or in the absence of any explanation, or if it being found fals…

SH. MANINDER SINGH PROP. M/S DASHMESH BRICKS,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 7 Maninder Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO (SC), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009), the latter also relied upon by the Revenue before me. Continuing further, in my opinion, both clauses (A) and (B) of Explanation 1 to the section are attracted in the present case. Limb (A) of Explanation 1, i.e., where the assessee either fails to furnish an explanation or…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHYAM TEX INTERNATIONAL LTD

Accordingly, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed

ITA/321/2010HC Delhi06 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…our view, such a perception was not wholly unjustified and, thus, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. The learned DR had also relied on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 675. In that case, the AO noticed the difference between the stock shown in the books of account and stock kept in the warehouse. The explanation of the assessee was that some stock belonged to a third party who was a truck driver. No evidence could be produced to show that the truck driver owned agricultural land or cultivated it. In these…