CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel

139 ITR 1028High Court#5459 most cited

What is CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on an estimated basis. Such additions do not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · estimated addition · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 133ASection 148Section 151Section 270ASection 41(1)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 135asection 2(40)self occupied propertywithin four yearssection 135approval under section 151penalty under section 270ainfrastructure facilitysection 131(1a)section 41(1)section 22(1)live link

Judgments citing CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 287/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 178/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 177/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 290/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 289/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 288/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 275/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 274/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 273/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…yana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (SLP ITR 303 TR St. P-18 (SC) held that:"When the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable." Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 139 ITR 1028 has held that no penalty could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the penalty of Rs. 48,79,274/- under section 270A of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page 43of 44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) 62. In the resu…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on estimate basis. • CIT vs Smt K Meenakshi Kutty in 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) • CIT(A) vs Valmik bhai H Patel in 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd in 216 ITR 92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 422 (Mad) 7.15. The AO in his penalty order has held that assessee has not attem…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…njab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P &H) held that when the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench Rajkot in the case of ITO vs. Admiracle Advertising Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 07/Rjt/2010 and 649/Rj1/2010. 14. Thus there is no question of any concealment of income in respect of addition made on notional basis and therefor…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…njab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P &H) held that when the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench Rajkot in the case of ITO vs. Admiracle Advertising Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 07/Rjt/2010 and 649/Rj1/2010. 14. Thus there is no question of any concealment of income in respect of addition made on notional basis and therefor…

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…njab & Haryana has in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P &H) held that when the addition of income is based on estimate, penalty is not leviable (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has in the case of CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be sustained in respect of estimated addition. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench Rajkot in the case of ITO vs. Admiracle Advertising Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 07/Rjt/2010 and 649/Rj1/2010. 14. Thus there is no question of any concealment of income in respect of addition made on notional basis and therefo…

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.RUSHABH VATIKA,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3431/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…is as a result of change in estimate only by assessing and appellate authorities (20% to 100% to 30%); estimated addition does not lead to penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even in search cases. [Bombaywala Readymade Stores 230 Taxman 0313 (Guj), Lallubhai Joglbhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj)] (iv) There is no case by AO as to which and how "inaccurate particulars of income" were furnished, when all facts and figures were disclosed and reasons for adopting 20% profit rate were elaborately explained, none of which are negatived by the AO [Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 SC] (v) Further, Expl. 5A to Sec. 271(l)(c) does not get attracted…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…below:- > CIT vs. Smt. K. MeenakshiKutty 258ITR 494(Mad). 6 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., > Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85(P&H). > CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). > CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). > CIT vs. Lallubhaijogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) > CIT vs. Shivnarayanjamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 ITR 121 > CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2