CIT v. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd.

244 CTR 596High Court2011#17348 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd.

The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda vs. Smt. Gauri Jay Jani, Baroda

In the result, all five appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 2688/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: --None--
Section 271(1)(c)

…he claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the legislature.” 3.2 Learned CIT further discussed a matter in the case of CIT vs. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (Del), held that “it may be that the claim of the assessee was not found acceptable in quantum proceedings on merits. However, it was not the case of concealment and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not be applicable more so when all material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO.” 4. We have…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda vs. Smt. Jyotsnaben A. Jani, Baroda

In the result, all five appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 2687/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: --None--
Section 271(1)(c)

…he claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the legislature.” 3.2 Learned CIT further discussed a matter in the case of CIT vs. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (Del), held that “it may be that the claim of the assessee was not found acceptable in quantum proceedings on merits. However, it was not the case of concealment and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not be applicable more so when all material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO.” 4. We have…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda vs. Smt. Gayatri Anand Jani, Baroda

In the result, all five appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 2686/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: --None--
Section 271(1)(c)

…he claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the legislature.” 3.2 Learned CIT further discussed a matter in the case of CIT vs. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (Del), held that “it may be that the claim of the assessee was not found acceptable in quantum proceedings on merits. However, it was not the case of concealment and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not be applicable more so when all material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO.” 4. We have…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda vs. Shri Jay Arvindbhai Jani, Baroda

In the result, all five appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 2684/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: --None--
Section 271(1)(c)

…he claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the legislature.” 3.2 Learned CIT further discussed a matter in the case of CIT vs. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (Del), held that “it may be that the claim of the assessee was not found acceptable in quantum proceedings on merits. However, it was not the case of concealment and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not be applicable more so when all material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO.” 4. We have…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda vs. Shri Arvindkumar D. Jani, Baroda

In the result, all five appeals filed by the department are dismissed

ITA 2683/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: --None--
Section 271(1)(c)

…he claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the legislature.” 3.2 Learned CIT further discussed a matter in the case of CIT vs. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (Del), held that “it may be that the claim of the assessee was not found acceptable in quantum proceedings on merits. However, it was not the case of concealment and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) would not be applicable more so when all material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO.” 4. We have…

CIT v. Mahavi Irrigation (P) Ltd. (244 CTR 596) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax