CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal (273 ITR 326)

Pranam Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 80I

…misrepresentation or suppression of facts. We are not discussing other circumstances referred to any sub-Section (9), since the same are not pertinent / relevant to assessee's particular set of facts. In the case of CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 194 CTR 97/273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC), it was held that the term "misrepresentation" implies that there is no true and fair disclosure. The Madras High Court in the case of P.M. Perianna Pillai v. CIT 46 STC 94 has held that the act of making a false or misleading assertion about something, usually with the intent to deceive amounts to "misrepresentation'. The wor…

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

…urpose of levying penalty though in the penalty order the AO has stated that the penalty is levied since there is "misrepresentation or suppression of facts" by the assessee under 270(9)(a) of the Act. In the case of CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 194 CTR 97/273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC), it was held that the term "misrepresentation" implies that there is no true and fair disclosure. The Madras High Court in the case of P.M. Perianna Pillai v. CIT 46 STC 94 has held that the act of making a false or misleading assertion about something, usually with the intent to deceive amounts to "misrepresentation' and the…

Parulben Vijaykumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

…se (a) deals with misrepresentation or suppression of facts. We are not discussing other circumstances referred to any sub-Section (9), since the same are not pertinent / relevant to assessee’s particular set of facts. In the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Mittal 273 ITR 326 (SC), it was held that the term “misrepresentation” implies that there is no true and fair disclosure. The Madras High Court in the case of P.M. Perianna Pillai vs. CIT 46 STC 94 has held that the act of making a false or misleading assertion about something, usually with the intent to deceive amounts to “misrepresentation’. The word “misrepresen…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…asad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC) viii. CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 82 CCH 249 (Kar…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…asad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 (SC) viii. CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) CIT &Ors. V. Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 82 CCH 249 (Kar…

M/S Radic Khaitan Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4355/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2005-06]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 245Section 245D(4)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T Plot No. J-1, Block B-1 Central Circle - 19 Mohan Corporate Industrial Area, New Delhi Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN No. AAACA 2513 K [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2019 Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv Revenue by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, Wit…

CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on