CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons.

153 ITR 292High Court1985#11134 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons.

Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…ful neglect and the quantum of proof necessary would be that required in a civil case, namely, preponderance of probabilities. This proposition has been laid down in a catena of decisions , some of which are as under: a) CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat.) (FB); b) CIT v. Pawan Kumar Dalmia [1987] 168 ITR 1 (Ker.); c) CIT v. Gurudayalram Mukhlal [1991] 190 ITR 39 (Gau.); d) CIT v. Bimal Kumar Damani [2003] 261 ITR 87 (Cal.). 11 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO As far as the present case is concerned, it is abundantly clear that after the identity of the creditor and the gen…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 7034, 7035 & 7036/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax The View, 165 Central Circle – 47 Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN: AAACO3920A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Awangshi Gimson Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These appeals are filed b…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…dhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB), to name some. The ld. counsel, adducing a copy of the notice u/s. 274 dated 07.02.2014, argued before us that the penalty could not be levied in-as-much as the notice does not spell out as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of inc…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7671/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

For Appellant: Shri S. R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…dra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). 7 ITO vs. Amar Diamond Tools 5. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in, vacating the findings of the ld. CIT(A), uphold the levy of penalty in the instant case. We decide accordingly. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed. प"रणामतः राज"व क" अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on August…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…rmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). What the assessee has acquired (at a cost of Rs.185 lacs, also incurring the obligation for a peppercorn rent of Rs.500/- per month), is an interest in a residential flat, which can itself be termed as an immovable property, with the acquisition thus further qualifying as a transfer u/s. 2(47) of the Act. The Apex Court has clarified p…

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7433/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…rmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB): ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271 (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner Appeals in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a)........ (b)........ 7 SBI DFHI Limited vs. Asst. CIT (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished…

Amish R. Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(30(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); besides by the hon’ble high courts as well, as CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). As abundantly clarified, a plausible explanation saves penalty. It is the plausibility of this explanation with the assessee is required to establish. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. प"रणामतः "नधा"रती क" अपील सां"यक"य उ"दे"य के "लए आं"शक "वीकृत क" जाती है । Ord…