CIT V/s. Vinaychand Harilal 120 ITR 752(Guj HC) 2) CIT v. Navneetlal Pchalal

261 ITR 675High Court#24073 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT V/s. Vinaychand Harilal 120 ITR 752(Guj HC) 2) CIT v. Navneetlal Pchalal

Shri Dipakkumar Keshavlal Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is thus allowed

ITA 419/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…is decided in the following cases that assessee offered an income to be tax in this circumstances no penalty is leviable. 1) CIT V/s. Vinaychand Harilal 120 ITR 752(Guj HC) 2) CIT V/s. Navneetlal Pchalal 213 ITR 69(Guj HC) 3) CIT V/s. Millax Cable Industries 261 ITR 675(Guj HC) 4) CIT V/s. Sureshchandra Mital 251 ITR (SC) In view of the above facts and submission we request you to drop the penalty proceedings." It is the finding of Learned Assessing Officer while imposing penalty that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving his bonafide regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of t…

Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 762/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 274Section 54ESection 54G

…cealed Ahmedabad ITAT- Gruh Finance Ltd. 316 ITR 441 Concealment implies deliberate Act S.C. K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562 6. Assessee admitting mistake - Applying provision of s. 263- before levying penalty, admitted NO penalty. Guj.H.C Milex Cable Industries -261 ITR 675-182 CTR 442” Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 The learned AR also further submitted as under: “During the course of hearing today on 17/05/2018, your Honours instructed to give clarification regarding how the claim u/s 54G was made on the basis of the facts of the case. I, Devendra N. Thakker, solemnly declare the follow…

Mina Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta & Sanjeev Kwatra, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…s: " Ashok Raj Nath, Panipat Vs DCIT ( ITAT Del) " Sri T. Ashok Pal Vs CIT, dated 18.05.2007 (SC) " K.C. Builder5s & Anr. Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) " CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, ITA No. 2564/2005 (Kar.) " CIT VS Miles Cables Industries 261 ITR 675 " New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT, dated 25.01.2006 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Manu Engineering Works (Guj.) 6. It was further submitted that the AO wrongly calculated the amount of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act because the final tax liability after adjusting the TDS came to Rs.58,451/- and not Rs.1,34,365/-. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considerin…