How many judgments cite CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (352 ITR 592), spanning 2013 to 2024.

CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

352 ITR 592High Court2013#3811 most cited

What is CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for a bona fide and inadvertent mistake made by the assessee or their Chartered Accountant while filing the return.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd · 352 ITR 592 · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · bona fide mistake · inadvertent mistake · Chartered Accountant · bona fide and unintentional mistake

Judgments citing CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that no penalty u/s.271(l)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits (2013) 352 ITR 592 also deleted the penalty which occurred due to bona fide and inadvertent mistake of the Chartered Accountant while filing the return. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant case amply show that the excess claim of deduction was due to bona fide and unintentional mistake, respectfully following the precedents, we order to delete the pena…

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…use Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bonafide mistake committed by the assessee. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Somany Evergreen Knits (2013) 352 ITR 592 also deleted the penalty which occurred due to bonafide and inadvertent mistake of chartered accountant while filing the return. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant case amply show that the excess claim of deduction was due to bobafide and unintentional mistake, respectfully following the precedents, we order to deleted the penalty."…

M/S. RANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 555/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.555/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Rane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Gat No.52, Dehu Alandi Road, Circle-5, Pune Talwade, Pune – 412114 Pan: Aadcr9011N Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

…e Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits (2013) 352 ITR 592 also deleted the penalty which occurred due to bona fide and inadvertent mistake of the Chartered Accountant while filing the return. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant case amply show that the excess claim of deduction was due to bona fide and unintentional mistake, respectfully following the precedents, we order to delete the pena…

VALUE LINE EQUITIES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNWOAN AS M.S SB & T SECURITIES P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 4605/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR byFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

…In view of the above facts, the assessee prays that the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) shall be deleted. 6. Assessee rely on following judicial pronoucements: - Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [348ITR 306 SC] - CIT vs. SomanyEvergree Knits Ltd.[ 352 ITR 592 (Bom)] - CIT vs M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. [259 CTR (Bom) 383] - Ambico Integrated Marketing vs ACIT [ITA 1350/Mum/2017] - Spanco Technologies (I) (P) Ltd vs DCIT [ITA 5827/Mum/2014] 7. AO has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication [327 ITR 510 (Del)]. The assessee submits that the above decision…

SMT. KUMUDINI V. GAVIT,,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Maruti W. Maddewad

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. " 8. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 on the issue of imposing penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act has held as under: "Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) --Furnishing of inaccurate particulars --Bona fide mistake - Assessee sold its garment manufacturing machine, forming part of block of assets & claimed loss thereon as revenue expenditure-In assessment proceedings Ms. Archana Shantilal Jain asse…

ANAND SUBHASH BOHORA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1837/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Subhash Bohora, Plot No.18, Welcome Nursery, Old Pandit Colony, Nashik-422 002 Pan : Abrpb9679E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1837/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Subhash Bohora, Plot No.18, Welcome Nursery, Old Pandit Colony, Nashik-422 002 PAN : ABRPB9679E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Written Submission Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement…

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT Circle – 3, Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Room No. 2, 6th floor, Prop-M/s Sai Venkatesh Ashar IT Park, Road no. बिधम/ Construction, Room No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial 17, Jeevan Kamal CHS, Vs. Estate, Thane, Kopri Colony, Pin 400 604 Mumbai- 400 603. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. ACCPL9583H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1617, 1618 & 1619/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 t…

ASHTAVINAYAK CONSTRUCTION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR. 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…oducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 0158(SC), UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010) 1 GSTR 66 (SC), CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC), Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC), CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay), Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT Nagpur 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay), Jain Brothers Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC) and M/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory. 7. In a rejoinder the Ld. counsel files a written submission in response to the decisions referred by the Ld. DR. The same is…

M/S.PAYTRONIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1417/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 36Section 40

…Court/jurisdictional High Courts has deleted the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) on account of inadvertent mistakes by the assessee in filing their returns: a) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT [348 ITR 306](Supreme Court) b) CIT Vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd [352 ITR 592](Bombay) c) CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. [87 DTR 368](Bombay) 10. In view of our above facts and circumstances and considering judicial pronouncement relied upon we are of the M/s Paytronic Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT view that the non accounting/booking of TDS of Rs.3, 14,325/- as income in assessee's books of accounts is due to inadvertent…

M/S JUST DIAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6900/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathajust Dial Ltd (Formerly Dcit-9(2) Known As Just Dial Pvt.Ltd.) Now Dcit 12(3)(1) M-501-B, Palm Court Room No.147B Complex, Above D-Mart Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Near Goregaon Sport Club, Mumbai-400 020 New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaca8049G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Respondent By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…support of the submission the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pricewaterhouse Copers Pvt Ltd (PWC) Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), Bombay High Court Vs. Bennett Colemann & Co.Ltd. 259 CTR 383, CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bombay) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Siddharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of AO. The Ld. DR further submits that had the case was not been selected for scrutiny the income would have escaped assessment, when the AO detected the particular the assessee has taken an ex…

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am A.C.I.T. (International Taxation), Vs. M/S Joy Partnership Mining Circle-1 (2), Kolkata Centre Room No-206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 85/1 Topsia Road, ( South) Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700046 Kolkata-7000107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj 6427 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Lal, AR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…the ld AO to consider the revised income of the assessee on 03.01.2012 wtihin the time permissible to file revised return i.e. 31st March, 2012. We note in the case of CIT vs Somany 8 M/s Joy Partnership Mining Centre A.Y: 2010-11 Evergreen Knits Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 592 the Ho’ble Bombay High Court observed as follows : “The grievance of the revenue is that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income, Tribunal held that the time to file a revised return had expired. In any event, it was not disputed that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In that…

SWADESH TEXTILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…. CIT 292 ITR 11 (SC), CIT v. Indusind Bank Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 406 (Bom.), DIT v. Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw [2013] 35 taxmann.com 95 (Bom.), CIT v. Sania Mirza [2013] 40 taxmann.com 17 (AP), CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), Lequidz India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 558/Hyd/2011], CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del.), Udayan Mukharjee v. CIT 291 ITR 318 (Cal.), CIT v. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. (Madras High Court), Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1985 of 2006. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that the computation…

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…on the part of an assessee, relied on the following judicial pronouncement:- (i) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom). (iv) CIT Vs. Rose Lock Factory (1993) 204 ITR 753 (All) The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition P a g e | 21 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shah Rukh Khan made in the hands of the assessee in re…

APEXX TEXPRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4891/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Vikas SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…not an attempt to reduce the profit or tax. 8. vs DCIT (ITA NO.5112/Del/2012 (ITAT Del); (ii) CIT vs Societex (2012) 259 CTR 325 6 (Del); (iii) B.L. International vs ACIT, (ITA No.1590/Del/2014)(ITAT Delhi); (iv) CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC); and (vi) CIT vs. Sania Mirza (2013) 259 CTR 386 (AP HC) in support of the principle that it is possible that the assesse could make even silly mistakes and in the absence of any misrepresentation of facts, the penalty cannot be sustained. 9. In this matter, we are con…

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. FEDERAL BRANDS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 741/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Ravish Sooddcit-9(3)(1), 215, 2Nd Floor, Vs. M/S. Federal Brands Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate, A-46,Street No.2, Opp. Idbi Mumbai – 400 020. Bank, Midc, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 093 Pan No. Aabcm1844N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

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

…at an excess claim of depreciation by an assessee for bonafide reasons would not justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) had also been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.) 8. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) in DCIT vs. Federal Brands Ltd. – A.Y. 2009-10 11 respect of excess claim of depreciation by the assessee under the aforesaid set of circumstances was liable to be imposed in its hands. We, thus, not finding any in…

SURESH MOHAN KANWAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

ITA 70/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Milin Dattani &For Respondent: V. Justin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ock Exchange and as no STT was paid on the transaction, assessee is liable to pay L.TCG. Accordingly, he included the above income in return u/s. 153A. lii support of his argument, the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bombay), Santa Mirza 259 CTR 386 (AP-HC) for the proposition that a bonafide mistake made on the wrong advise of Chartered Accountant does not attract penal consequences. Besides the above ITA Nos.64-69/Mum/2016 & 70-75/Mum/2016 arguments, the assessee submitted an affidavit by Shri Uday Soman, C.A., proprietor of Soman Uday & Co., wherein he a…

SAMITA SURESH KANWAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

ITA 69/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Milin Dattani &For Respondent: V. Justin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

AJAY KUMAR BAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (Bom.), 12 7. Likewise in the case of CIT vs Somani Evergree Knit Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), there was excess claim of depreciation. Rectification was made by the assessee during assessment proceedings and the mistake was bona fide. In that situation, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court took a decision that penalty is not leviable. However, in the present appeal, as discussed above, there is conscious concealment of income…

ARCHANA SHANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. DCIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7494/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Archana Shantilal The Deputy Commissioner Jain, Of Income Tax-26(2), Plot No.61, St. Patricks Charni Road, Vs. Town Society, Mumbai Pune Solapur Road, Pune – 411 013 Pan: Agkpj 4247N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhat, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

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

…. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 wherein it is held that when there is a bonafide mistake in filing a return of income by CA, then return of income will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that in this case the assessee has not taken into consideration the income of salary from the first employer M/s. Satyam Computer and this mistake was made by…

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…herefore the penalty proceedings were not exigible. The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions : i) DIT(IT) V/s Asia Attractive Dividend stock-fund -35 taxmann.com 265 ii) CIT V/s Ask Enterprises 230 ITR 48 (Bom); ii) CIT V/s Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bom); iii) CIT V/s Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd 348 ITR 339 (Del). 18 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 Further the ld.AR argued that non initiation of penalty proceedings us/ 271(1) (c) of the Act by the AO cannot be a subject matter of the revisionary proceedings as has been held in the case of N Jamnadas and Co in ITA No.2930/Mum/201…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2