CIT v. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani

311 ITR 327High Court2009#11476 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 80dsection 80ebona fide mistakesection 271aaahouse property incomesummons under section 131full and true disclosureroyalty incomesection 80csection 273section 139(5)section 139(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani

Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

ITA 4072/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…o occasion for the department to levy penalty. In this regard Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial decisions: 4 M/s Choudhari Constructions Co, Mumbai 1. CIT VS SAS pharmaceutical [2011] 335 ITR 259 Delhi, 2. CIT Vs. Shankarlal nebhamal Uttamchandani, 311 ITR 327 (Guj). 3. CIT Vs Suraj Bhan, [2007], 294, ITR, 481 4. Ajay Sangari & Co Vs ACIT 140 TTJ 388 Chandigarh 7. It was also argued that while invoking penalty provisions U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, once the AO was not sure regarding which limb of penalty provision he intends to press into, therefore his action of levy of penalty is against the provision…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, लेखा सदस्य आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Sh. Ajoy Sharma 19A, Nityanand Nagar, Queen Vs. Road, Opp. Sarovar Portico Hotel, Near Kanha Restaurant, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPS 8009 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Sh. Hemang Gargieya, Adv. राजस्व…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Sh. Ajoy Sharma 19A, Nityanand Nagar, Queen Vs. Road, Opp. Sarovar Portico Hotel, Near Kanha Restaurant, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPS 8009 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / A…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Sh. Ajoy Sharma 19A, Nityanand Nagar, Queen Vs. Road, Opp. Sarovar Portico Hotel, Near Kanha Restaurant, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPS 8009 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Sh. Hemang Gargieya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से…

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 968/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Shri Suresh Mal Lodha The ACIT 75, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines Vs. Circle-6 Jaipur – 302 006 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGPL 0612 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahenda Gargieya, Advocate Shri Devang…

Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e for taxation. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assesse has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 009(SC) (ii) CIT Vs Bhavinkumar M Dagli 377 ITR 389 (Guj HC) (iii) CIT Vs Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani 311 ITR 327 (Guj) (iv) Pr.CIT Vs Smt. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra 419 ITR 094 (MP HC) (v) CIT Vs Suraj Bhan 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC) (vi) PCIT & Ors. Vs Krishna Devi & Ors. 431 ITR 361 (Del HC) 5 Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO (vii) Lalubhai P Bathani Vs DCIT 242/Srt/2017 (Surat Trib) (viii) Smt. Pushpaben P Sonarupawala V ACIT 17 CCH 023 (Ahd. Trib) (ix) Neel…

Rheal Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…ion etc. the same cannot attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In this context, the Ld. counsel refers to the decision in Cheap Cycle Stores v. CIT (154 Taxman 284) (All.), CIT v. Backbone Enterprises (195 Taxman 200) (Guj), CIT v. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani (311 ITR 327). Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd 11 Finally, relying on the decision in Sesa Resources Ltd. v. ACIT (38 taxmann.com 224); ITO v. Sanjeev Mishra (41 SOT 17), the Ld. counsel submits that mere denial of claim would not per se result in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 5.2 The Ld. counsel submits that in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High C…

Rajendra Kumar Sharda, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Neene Jeph (JCIT)
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 150/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Rajendra Kumar Sharda, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 46, Sharda Bhawan, Brijpura, Ward 2(3), Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFFPS 1259 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Neene Jeph (JCIT) lquo…

Sanjay Chugh vs. ACIT Circle-37 (1)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidr. Sanjay Chugh, Vs. Acit, W-8, Ground Floor, Circle-37(1), Gk-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Amitosh Moitra, CA
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…that where the assessee has filed revised return disclosing his entire income and paid taxes thereon before the issuance of notice u/s.148, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT Vs. Shankerlal Nebhmal Uttamchandani 311 ITR 327 (Guj.) has held that revised return filed before the detection of concealment, in such case no penalty is leviable. Respectfully following above decision & in view of the above discussion, the penalty levied by the AO of Rs.12,61,050/- is hereby ordered to be cancelled. The Revenue carried such order of CIT (Appeals) before the Tribunal. The Tri…

CIT v. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani (311 ITR 327) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax