CIT v. M. George & Bros.

160 ITR 511High Court1986#22890 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. M. George & Bros.

Shri Cdr, Udai Singh, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

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

…CDR Udai Singh आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी डी.ट".गरा"सया, "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 CDR Udaisingh Bhopal PAN – AGLPS – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs ACIT 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date of hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

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

…o well settled that the criterion and yardsticks for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the additions. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 while following the decision in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mit…

Mina Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta & Sanjeev Kwatra, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

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

…Pochalal (1995) 213 ITR 69 (Guj.) " Nuruddin and Bros. (1990) 1985 ITR 481 (Cat) " Gridharlal Soni (1989) 179 ITR 111 (Cal) 4 Mina Gandhi " Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (1988) 169 ITR 33 (Bom) " Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) " M. George & Bros. (1986) 160 ITR 511 (Ker) " Smt. Hema Malini (1993) 45 TTJ 77 (Bom) (AT) 5. It was further submitted that the AO has not given a clear finding as to whether the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashok Raj Nath, Panipat Vs DCIT ( ITAT Del) " Sri T. Ashok Pa…