CIT v. Manu Engineering Works

132 ITR 306High Court1980#11931 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,276 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engineering Works

Nand Kumar Prasad Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 185/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ssioner (Appeals) showed that no clear-cut finding had been reached. ITA Nos.184/PAT/2023 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad Sah & Bishwannath Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ratio in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 22 ITR 306 (Guj.) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.’ 012. We also observe This Tribunal in case of Chandra Prakash Bubna (supra) held as under: - “the word ‘conceal’ as per Websters Dictionary means ‘to hide, withdraw, or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight; to keep secret; to…

Nand Kumar Prasad Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 184/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ssioner (Appeals) showed that no clear-cut finding had been reached. ITA Nos.184/PAT/2023 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad Sah & Bishwannath Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ratio in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 22 ITR 306 (Guj.) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.’ 012. We also observe This Tribunal in case of Chandra Prakash Bubna (supra) held as under: - “the word ‘conceal’ as per Websters Dictionary means ‘to hide, withdraw, or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight; to keep secret; to…

Bishwanath Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ssioner (Appeals) showed that no clear-cut finding had been reached. ITA Nos.184/PAT/2023 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad Sah & Bishwannath Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ratio in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 22 ITR 306 (Guj.) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.’ 012. We also observe This Tribunal in case of Chandra Prakash Bubna (supra) held as under: - “the word ‘conceal’ as per Websters Dictionary means ‘to hide, withdraw, or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight; to keep secret; to…

Bishwanath Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 161/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ssioner (Appeals) showed that no clear-cut finding had been reached. ITA Nos.184/PAT/2023 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad Sah & Bishwannath Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ratio in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 22 ITR 306 (Guj.) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.’ 012. We also observe This Tribunal in case of Chandra Prakash Bubna (supra) held as under: - “the word ‘conceal’ as per Websters Dictionary means ‘to hide, withdraw, or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight; to keep secret; to…

Shri Arun Kumar Lila, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(2), Bhopal

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Rajan and Co., 291 ITR 340 (Del), wherein it is held that the provision of M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 17 section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax 1961 would require…

Shri Arun Kumar Lila, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(2), Bhopal

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 229/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Rajan and Co., 291 ITR 340 (Del), wherein it is held that the provision of M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 17 section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax 1961 would require…

Shri Arun Kumar Lila, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(2), Bhopal

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 228/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Rajan and Co., 291 ITR 340 (Del), wherein it is held that the provision of M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 17 section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax 1961 would require…

Shri Arun Kumar Lila, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(2), Bhopal

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 227/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Rajan and Co., 291 ITR 340 (Del), wherein it is held that the provision of M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 17 section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax 1961 would require…

Shri Arun Kumar Lila, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(2), Bhopal

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Tribunal. The order was invalid.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Rajan and Co., 291 ITR 340 (Del), wherein it is held that the provision of M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 17 section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax 1961 would require…