How many judgments cite CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel (139 ITR 1028), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 133A, Section 148, Section 151, Section 270A.

CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel

139 ITR 1028High Court#5368 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 147 Section 133A Section 148 Section 151 Section 270A Section 41(1)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 135a section 2(40)self occupied property within four years section 135 approval under section 151 penalty under section 270a infrastructure facility section 131(1a)section 41(1)section 22(1)live link

Judgments citing CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…pal Singh vs. CIT reported in 125 Taxmann 252/258 ITR 85 (P &H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). (Ill) CIT(A) vs. ValimkbhaiH. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (MP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs, CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)J (vlii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] Reliance is further placed on the following decisions of various Hi…

Shri Anil Kothari (HUF), Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 6, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2645/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amrjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of 2. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. "था. ले. सं./Pan No.: Aacha 4940 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: 2. Ground No.1 as amended by the Revenue states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in de

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…n of Rs.2.70 crores made by the AO was reduced to Rs.70,403/-by applying the net profit ratio of 0.25% of unverifiable purchases. The penalty cannot be levied on estimated addition as decided in many judicial pronouncements like CIT v. Lalubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj), Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) , CIT v. Valmikibhai H Patel 280 ITR 487 (Guj). 19. Per contra, Ld. D.R. supported the order of CIT (A). 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the AO has made addition on account of unve…