CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

327 ITR 242High Court2010#10227 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,\"B\" JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nSuperfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd.\n2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna,\nNehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur.\nबनाम\nVs.\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nCircle6,\nJaipur.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / R…

SANJIV KRISHNAKANT ASHTAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6579/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Shri. Sanjiv Krishnakant Income Tax Officer 3(3) Ashtamkar Room No.8, B Wing, B-2, Ratna Umaid Ashar It Park, V. Residency, Pipe Line Road, Rd No. 16-Z, Luiswadi, Thane 400604 Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra Thane (W)- 400604 Maharashtra स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abbpa3596K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Kishore Poddar Revenue By: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6579/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.08.2017 In Appeal No. Pn/Cit(A)-2/Ito Wd-3(3)/Thn/83/2017-18, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 27.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay: 2009-10. I.T.A. No.6579/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Kishore PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the appellant was indeed abroad during those impugned 30 days also. b. The same position was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2010)329 ITR 572 (Del). C. In the case of CIT Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 160 (Kar.) the Hon'ble Karnataka High court held that imposition of penalty is not automatic. It is only when there is attempt to evade tax by offering explanation which is found to be false or not bonafide, that penalty can be imposed. In the present case, the appellant under bonafide belief has claimed his residential status as non-resident, which…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/502/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/503/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/504/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ot bona fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/506/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ot bona fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/500/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/501/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/505/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ot bona fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…a Agrawal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (All) • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 362 ITR 160 (Kar) • CIT vs. Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680 (Mad) • CIT vs. Shyam RajSingh 367 ITR 74 (P &H) • CIT vs. Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) • CIT-II Lucknow Vs. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited MANU/UP/0358/2016 The above decision has been cited in support of the contention that disallowance of any claim cannot be become the basis of lev…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd.,

ITTA/500/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 10BSection 260

…fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid down the same proposition of law. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excess stock was detected during course of search proceedings is not borne out of any material or assessment records. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on record and cannot be accepted. 18. In the r…