CIT v. Raj Textile

166 ITR 632High Court#19431 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Textile

Ms. Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Baroda vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1623/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…could be framed merely because another view is possible. The appeal is, thus, without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.” 9.5 Similarly, we also extend our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Textile in 166 ITR 632 wherein it was held as under: "While framing the assessment for the assessment year in question the ITO added certain amount, which according to the ITO had not been disclosed by the assessee. The ITO also initiated penalty pro- ceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In those proceedings, the assessee contended that a mist…

Shri Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Radadia, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…could be framed merely because another view is possible. The appeal is, thus, without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.” 8.1 Similarly, we also extend our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Textile in 166 ITR 632 wherein it was held as under: "While framing the assessment for the assessment year in question the ITO added certain amount, which according to the ITO had not been disclosed by the assessee. The ITO also initiated penalty pro- ceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In those proceedings, the assessee contended that a mista…

Angel Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5433/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.5433/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Angle Broking P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cen Cir.7(3), Mumbai G-1, Akruti Trade Centre, Rood Room No.640, Aaykarbhavan, M.K. No.7, Midc, Andheri(East), Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 093. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6094 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shriadityamaheswari, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjunlalsaini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-9, Mumbai, In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 9/Cir-4(1)/284/2015-16, Dated, 24.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penaltyorder Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.03.2015. 2.The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Was Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.4,03,895/-. 3.The Brief Facts Apropos This Issue Are That While Completing Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Rs.11,88,275/- U/S 94(7) Of The Act & Also Made Disallowance Of Speculation Loss Of Rs.27,62,83,681/- . In Pursuance Of The Disallowance Made By The Ao In His

For Appellant: ShriAdityaMaheswari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 94(7)

…n the case laws as under : 1. KhanchandThakurdas v. CIT -140 ITR 581(Kar. HC) 2. CIT v. Dev Raj-98 ITR 76(P&H HC) 3. Mahadeswara Movies v. CIT 144 ITR 127(Kar. HC) 4. CIT v. HiralalShankarlal 165 ITR 124(Calcutta HC) 9 ITA 8644/Mum/2011 5. CIT v. Raj Textile -166 ITR 632(MP HC) In our considered view and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee-firm has not concealed the particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt there has been slip up in filing the claim u/s 94(7) of the Act but the…

Nandkishor & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

…ling the return of income with the Revenue: 1. Khanchand Thakurdas v. CIT -140 ITR 581(Kar. HC) 2. CIT v. Dev Raj-98 ITR 76(P&H HC) 3. Mahadeswara Movies v. CIT 144 ITR 127(Kar. HC) 4. CIT v. Hiralal Shankarlal 165 ITR 124(Calcutta HC) 5. CIT v. Raj Textile -166 ITR 632(MP HC) The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee-firm borrowed funds @ 12% p.a. interest and deployed the funds at 6 to 9% p.a. interest to its sister concerns. The assessee-firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust, (2010) 326 ITR 286(P&H HC) and the decision of H…

CIT v. Raj Textile (166 ITR 632) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax