CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1998) 232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T.Abdul Majeed

232 ITR 50High Court1998#7932 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also reported as

93 Taxmann 491

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1998) 232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T.Abdul Majeed

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)

…l 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, subsequent return was filed voluntarily, b…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…inu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311. vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 10. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy and illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.59,00,884/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed.” 11. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s ow…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

…inu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311. vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 10. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy and illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.59,00,884/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed. 6 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of January, 2022. (PART…

BAFNA JANGADA CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 452/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80I

…ainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 185. iv) CIT Vs. Super Metal Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82. v) Diwas Enterprise Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 Delhi. vi) CIT Vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co., (1998) 232 ITR 311 vii) CIT Vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1998) 232 ITR 50. 11. On perusal of the assessment order, it would clearly suggests that it is a case of mere disallowance of claim made which does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor is it false claim, as the assessee had made a bonafide claim and contended vehemently the findings of the AO that the size of the land is less than…