CIT v. S. Shankaran

131 ITR 680Reported decision1981#22499 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44AB

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Shankaran

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ve things, as it is well-settled legal principle that any proof and manner of proof are all not required when there is an admission. The assessee has mainly relied upon the case laws of CIT Vs S. Shankaran (2000) 241 ITR 825, Mohammad Azim Ullah Vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 680,CIT Vs Abdul Majeed(1998)232 ITR 50, Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, 257 ITR 355 and few more case laws as discussed above in assessee's submission. But none of the case law is useful for the assessee as the facts of the case are different and distinguished. 3 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 4.2 It is not as though in the instant case, subse…

SHRI SHWETAL J. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shwetal J Patel The Income Tax A-1003, Iscon Park, Officer, Nr. Sudervan, Vs Ward-3(3)(5), Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN No: ABAPP0582B (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 13-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 29.12.2016 passed by…

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

…ion 27l(1)(c) does not alter or extend this meaning. It only assumes the concealment to exist if the assesses fails to prove that the non disclosure was not due to fraud or willful conduct, held by Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla 131 ITR 680 (AIL). Concealment means an attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income /ax authorities, held in case of CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 (Jhar) The A.O. has initiated penalty perfectly as per provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has only imposed penalty of 100% of amount payable on concealed i…