CIT v. Mani Lal Tara Chand

254 ITR 630High Court#24150 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mani Lal Tara Chand

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2457 J Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2456 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Ashutosh P Nanavaty, AR Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/12/2022 Date o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…in which the deduction could be allowed and the Court held by castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising question as to the year of deductibili ty/taxa bility. 254 ITR 630, CIT vs. Manila I Tarachand (Gujarat H.C.) in which the Hon'bie High Court has held that where there is a dispute merely regarding year of taxability of an income, penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T. Act on the ground of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 323 ITR 641, Jayant Vegoils and Chemicals Pvt. Lt…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3554/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Negi, Sr DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

…006 -2007. According to him this shows the bona fides of the appellant and there was no intention of concealing the income on transfer of the shop. The Ld. CIT (A) further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v Mani Lal Tara Chand 254 ITR 630 (GUJ) and held that where there is a dispute about the year of assessment of income, penalty will not be imposable because the ITA No. 3554/De/09 ACIT V Puri Constructions Limited A Y 2005-06 assessee has offered income in a different year. Therefore after considering the totality of the facts and the law Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty. Against…