CIT v. Rawalpindi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

125 ITR 243High Court1980#22266 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Rawalpindi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Chimanbhai A. Kantesaria, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ad). Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 243 (All). 5. In alternative submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the inappropriate portion, wherein the penalty is levied on furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not specific charge of penalty is not sustainable.…

M/S Shiv Kumar Sushil Kumar Tea Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kailash Mangal (Addl.CIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80ASection 80ISection 80J

…de and upheld in appeal, does not justify the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The findings recorded in the assessment order only lays down the foundation for levy of penalty. It was pointed out in ACIT v. Rawalpindi Flour Mills (P) Ltd.. (1980) 125 ITR 243 (All), that material collected during assessment proceedings and finding arrived at therein can be relied upon in penalty proceedings but on this basis alone the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 7. Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT…

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri. V.G Ginde and ShriramFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…h (Tax Appeal No. 496/2010, dated 22.06.2011) (Guj) (ii) National Textiles Vs. CIT (249 ITR 125) (iii) Shri Chandrakant J. Shah Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18(2)(4), Mumbai (ITA No. 1236/ Mum/ 2006, dated 16.03.2012) (iv) Addl. CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills (125 ITR 243) (v) CIT Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (146 ITR 145) (vi) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh (214 CTR 147)(P&H) (vii) Satish Babladi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-36 (ITA No. 345 and 346/Mum/2015). The Ld. A.R. further averred that though it remained as a matter of fact that the quantum addition of Rs. 45,15,884/- which was claimed by the assessee as a gift received fr…