CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

299 ITR 305High Court2008#1420 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah authority for?

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah · 299 ITR 305 · Mahendra C. Shah Gujarat High Court · Section 132(4) statement · Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) · authorized officer's duty · immunity from penalty · undisclosed income search · manner of deriving income · advance tax on surrendered income · Section 211 advance tax compliance · Section 271AAB immunity

Also reported as

172 Taxmann 58

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271aaasection 271aasection 271ablock periodsection 132(4)undisclosed incomesection 271search and seizuresection 27section 132section 13opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ssa, International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5051/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 271A

…(Delhi-Trib.) 11. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur- Trib.) 12. Sita Ram Gupta Vs. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi-Trib.) 13. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2005] 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad- Trib.) 14. CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 7 ITA No.5051/Del./2013 (Gujrat-H.C.) 15. Mothers Pride Education Pertsonna P. Ltd. (Delhi dated 12.10.2012 I.T. Trib.) 16. JCIT Vs. Shri Jayendra N. Shah (Ahmedabad I.T. Trib.) dated 16.03.2018 17. Santosh Kumar Vs. DCIT dated 13.04.2018 12. More particularly, the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat cited as Pr. CIT-2 vs. MukeshBhai Ram…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Aryan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3227/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, Central Circle-17, F-180, C-Scheme, Room No. 103, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur, Hall No. 1,Ara Centre, E-2, Pan:Apfps5687B Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…Further, similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ITA No. 434/2017 dated 24.04.2017 in Pr. CIT-2, Vs. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Prajapati relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of in case of CIT Vs. Mahendershri Shah 299 ITR 305 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Radhakrishan Goel 278 ITR 454. The ld CIT(A) has also deleted the penalty for the same reasons. NO contrary decision was put to our attention. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ld Assessing Officer is directed to delete penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 1731180/-. 12. In the result ap…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sajjan Singh, Jaipur

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, Central Circle-17, F-180, C-Scheme, Room No. 103, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur, Hall No. 1,Ara Centre, E-2, Pan:Apfps5687B Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…Further, similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ITA No. 434/2017 dated 24.04.2017 in Pr. CIT-2, Vs. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Prajapati relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of in case of CIT Vs. Mahendershri Shah 299 ITR 305 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Radhakrishan Goel 278 ITR 454. The ld CIT(A) has also deleted the penalty for the same reasons. NO contrary decision was put to our attention. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) is confirmed. The ld Assessing Officer is directed to delete penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 1731180/-. 12. In the result ap…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Gupta Metal Sheets (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2062/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271A

…any question regarding the manner of earning the income, as such, the assessee cannot be expected to substantiate the manner of earning of income. While following the decision reported in the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah 299 ITR 307 and the decisions of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Harmohinder Singh Chadha in ITA No. 188/Chd./2015 and DCIT vs. Amarjit Goyal in ITA Nos. 1080 to 1082/Chd./2013 Ld. CIT(A) held that if no question is asked during the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and if the tax are paid on the surrendered income, then the assessee cannot be expected to fu…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Kishangarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2014-15
Section 271A

…e any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). The order is in tune with the principles laid down by various co-ordinate Benches and High Courts particularly with reference to disclosure made under section 132(4). In the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considered similar statement under section 132(4) to grant immunity under section 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “When the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in entirety to the assessee conc…

Sh. Shums Inayatali Soomar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, stay petition is dismissed as infructurous and the

ITA 2845/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…aspect. Ld. Counsel submitted that the penalty is levied on altogether a different charge that the assessee was not able to substantiate the manner in which such undisclosed income was earned. Basing on the decisions reported in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah in 299 ITR 305, Neerat Singal vs. Asstt. CIT 101 DTR 238 (Del. ‘E’), CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel in 278 ITR 454 and DCIT vs. Sulochanadevi 5 ITA No. 2845/Del/2017 & Stay No. 347/Del/2017 A. Agarwal in ITA No. 1052/Adh./2012, he argued that in the absence of any query about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation…

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Anupama P Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 925/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.925/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Asst. Cit, Central Circle-20, Smt. Anupama P. Jain Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, बिाम/ B-201, Minoo Minar, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Actpj 2249 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri T. A. Khan प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / : 10.07.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 06.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07, In The Matter Of Penalty Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d and taxes have been paid then it will be sufficient compliance of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). He in this regard referred to the 9 Asst. CIT vs. Smt. Anupama P. Jain decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305/ 172 Taxman 58 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha, Kishan Goesl [2005) 278 ITR 454/[2006) 152 Taxman 290. Thus, immunity provided by Explanation 5 is available to the assessee even though assessee has not specified the manner in which the undisclosed income is earned by him. 6.3. In view of the above discussion,…

M/S Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntrary; all the conditions of Explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c) having been fulfilled by assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. 19. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah reported in 299 ITR 305, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement u/s 132(4) and paid taxes thereon before assessment, was entitled to immunity from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) under Explanation 5 thereof even though the statement did not specify the manner in which the i…

Murarilal Mittal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 773/JPR/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2017AY 2008-2009
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…e any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). The order is in tune with the principles laid down by various co-ordinate Benches and High Courts particularly with reference to disclosure made under section 132(4). In the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considered similar statement under section 132(4) to grant immunity under section 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “When the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in entirety to the assessee conce…

Ravi Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…t he had concealed the particulars of income. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- levied by the A.O. 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj), Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del), DCIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Dokania (2012) 32 CCH 260 (Ahd-Trib), DCIT vs. Tapadia & Kasliwal Associates (2015) 44 CCH 518 (Pune-Trib), Concrete Developers vs. ACIT (2013) 34 taxman.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib), AC – CC vs. M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 6190/Mum/2013 (Mum- Trib) and ACIT vs. Gebila…

ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai vs. Mudra Lifestyle Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Dharamesh Shah -ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271A

…the copies of all the decisions in the form of legal paper book. The learned AR relied on the following decisions; (i) Concrete Developer Vs ACIT [34taxman.com 62]ITA No.381 /Nag/2012, (ii) Ashok Sharma Vs DCIT [149 TTJ 33(URO)] (iii) CIT Vs Mahendra C. Shah 299 ITR 305 (Gujarat High Court), (iv) ACIT Vs Phoenix Mills Ltd in ITA No 6190 /M/2013 dated 7.8.2015. (v) Hemant Kumar Vs ACIT in ITA No.745 /M/2015 dated 19.07. 2016. (vi) Meerat Singal Vs ACIT [161 TT 483], (vii) CIT Vs Radha Kishan Goel [278 ITR 454]Allahabad High Court, (viii) Sunil Kumar Bansal Vs DCIT [37 ITR (Trib) 576], (ix) Pramod Kr Jain Vs DCIT…

M/S Naval K Agarwal, Nagpur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/NAG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…1 ITA No. 32/Nag/2013. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 32/Nag/2013. Assessment Year : 2009-10. M/s Naval Kishore Agarwal, Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur. Vs. Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur. PAN AAKPA8834M. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 27-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 29th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)…

Vishnu Prasad Maharwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Gulshan Aggarwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271A

…ied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454(All). The reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Mahender C. Shah 299 ITR 305. 4.3 We have considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute with regard to the fact the assessee as per section 271AAA is required to admit the undisclosed income and specify the manner in which such income has been 5 Shri Vishnu Prasad Maharwal derived, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and pays the tax…

Shri Sunil Raisoni, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T. Centralcircle 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, these appeal filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 593/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…d 5th Dec., 2016.. The Tribunal’s adjudication reads as under : “Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271AAA should not be levied in this case. For this proposition he made reference to following case laws : “1. CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah 299 ITR 305 (Guj.). 2. CIT vs. Radhakisan Goel 278 ITR 454 (All.). 3. Concrete Developers vs. ACIT 34 Taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur Trib.) 4. ACIT vs. V. Nandini Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 415/Nag/2015) Nagpur Trib.). 5. The above judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals and held that if the assessee has declar…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 5796/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5796/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshan
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…J (Ctk.) (UO) 36 (ii) Ashok Kumar Sharma V/s. Dy. CIT 149 TTJ (Ctk.) (UO) 33 (iii) Dy. CIT V /s. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P. Ltd. 50 SOT 571 (Ko1.) (iv) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITA No.3372/De/2011) (v) CIT V / s. Mahendra C Shah 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (vi) ITO V /s. Shilpa V Gupta (ITA. 1784/ Ahd/2012) ITA 5796/M/13 7 (vii) DCIT V /s. Smt. Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal (ITA No.1052/ Ahd/2012) 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relying upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that, how the income has been earned and how the capital has been deployed needs to be explained by the asse…

Shri Ravi Kataria, Ratlam vs. The DCIT Central Circle, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 898/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.898/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ravi Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acmpk 3917P` :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.897/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madanlal Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acfpk 5779D :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent Shri P.D. Nagar "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By Shri Mohd. Javed

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…x was deposited while filing the return by disclosing such additional income, the assessee cannot be fastened with the penalty. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454(All.) (iii) Neerat Singal vs. ACIT (2014) 146 ITD 152 (Del) (iv) Promad Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTR 244 (Cuttack) (v) Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) with the submission that…

Shri Madanlal Kataria, Ratlam vs. The DCIT Central Circle, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 897/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.898/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ravi Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acmpk 3917P` :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.897/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madanlal Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acfpk 5779D :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent Shri P.D. Nagar "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By Shri Mohd. Javed

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…x was deposited while filing the return by disclosing such additional income, the assessee cannot be fastened with the penalty. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454(All.) (iii) Neerat Singal vs. ACIT (2014) 146 ITD 152 (Del) (iv) Promad Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTR 244 (Cuttack) (v) Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) with the submission that…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai vs. Centaur Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1701/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm Acit, Central Circle – 4 Vs. M/S. Centaur Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Attrium 215, 10Th Floor, (1), Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Next To Courtyard Marioff Hotel Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc4199F Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By Shri B.D. Nike

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 271A

…in a position to accept the contention of the Ld. AO, that the assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which such income was earned. The Ld. AR, in this regard also relied upon Hon'ble Gujrat High Court judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra C Shah (299 ITR 305) and Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (278 ITR 454) and also Hon'ble ITAT's decision in the case of M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 6763/Mum/2011), wherein Hon'ble ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-40 deleting the penalty levied u,'s.271 AAA. In fact my Ld. Predecessor in c…

Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF), Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata

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

ITA 1244/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…levant income tax return, the assessee will not be eligible for immunity under section 271 AAA(2). 8. While dealing with Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c), which is broadly on the same lines, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Mahendra C Shah (299 ITR 305) has observed that, “ ……there is no prescription about the point of time when the tax had to be paid qua the amount of income declared in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act”. We must, however, point out that even after making these specific observations Their Lordships had to treat the conclusion of assessment proceedings as outer limi…

Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata

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

ITA 1237/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…levant income tax return, the assessee will not be eligible for immunity under section 271 AAA(2). 8. While dealing with Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c), which is broadly on the same lines, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Mahendra C Shah (299 ITR 305) has observed that, “ ……there is no prescription about the point of time when the tax had to be paid qua the amount of income declared in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act”. We must, however, point out that even after making these specific observations Their Lordships had to treat the conclusion of assessment proceedings as outer limi…