CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9Supreme Court of India2001#537 most cited

What is CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal · 251 ITR 9 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · burden of proof · voluntary revised return · higher income declared after search · automatic penalty · Section 139(4) revised return

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 153ASection 69Section 143(3)Section 274Section 132Section 142(1)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 276section 65b(4)section 163section 153b(1)house property incomeazadi bachao andolansection 65bsection 90(2)section 65furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ce in this context; the law being trite, apart from the decision in Mak Data (supra), be made to the following decisions settling the law in the matter: Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB), to name some. The ld. counsel, adducing a copy of the notice u/s. 274 dated 07.02.2014, argued befo…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…to levy penalty having regard to the nature of mistake or omission committed by the assessee and general conduct of the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and such other relevant factors. 6.7 In the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/ 119 Taxman 435(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the assessee claimed that he offered additional income only to buy peace and avoid litigation and the Department did not prove concealment but simply rested its conclusion on the voluntary surrender of income by assessee in good faith, no penalty for concealment of income can be levied…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…to levy penalty having regard to the nature of mistake or omission committed by the assessee and general conduct of the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and such other relevant factors. 6.7 In the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/ 119 Taxman 435(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the assessee claimed that he offered additional income only to buy peace and avoid litigation and the Department did not prove concealment but simply rested its conclusion on the voluntary surrender of income by assessee in good faith, no penalty for concealment of income can be levied…

Padmaja S. Sirigeri, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4) (Old Jurisdiction), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 1334/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006 – 2007 Smt Padmaja S Sirigeri Ito 26(2)(4) 297, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk Vs Mumbai 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh -ARFor Respondent: Shri V Justin -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri G S Pannu, Accountant Member & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2006 – 2007 Smt Padmaja S Sirigeri ITO 26(2)(4) 297, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Wille Mansion, 1st Floor, Opp Bank of India, Nana Chowk Vs Mumbai 400 007 PAN AQTPS6276M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajkumar Singh -AR Respondent By : Shri V Justin -DR Date of Hearing : 23.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee under section (u/s) 253 of the Income-tax Act (‘Act’), is direct…

Yogendra Prafulla Mogre, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4204/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Krupa P. TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA.No.4204/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2007-08) Mr. Yogendra Prafulla Mogre v. ITO – 25(3)(4), 10/B 201, Alica Nagar, C-10, Room No.307, Lokhandwala Township, Pratyakshar Bhavan, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East) Bandra kurla complex, Mumbai – 400 101 Bandra West, Mumbai PAN No: AFFPM 8869 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Krupa P. Toprani Revenue by : Shri Purushotam Kumar Date of Hearing : 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 O R D E R PER C.…

Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-3, Indore

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Addl. CIT-Range 3(1) Indore/I.T.A. No. 414 to 419/Ind/2012/A.Y.: 02-03 to 07-08 Page 19 of 23 penalty under section 271(1)(c). In this regard, our view is also supported by the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [20OO] 241 ITR 124 (MP), wherein in similar circumstances; it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particular…

Mrs. Sandhya Dhanorkar, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 6, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 42/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…t of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the ITA No.2292/13 position, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) observed that where assessee has surrendered the income after persistence queries by the AO and where revised return has been regularized by the Revenue, explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peach of mind and to come out of waxed litigation could be treated as bona fide, accordingly levy of penalty under s.…

Archana D.Talati, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2696/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mrs. Archana D. Talati Vs. Ito – 25 (3)(3), Mumbai B/1101, Naman Tower Chs Ltd., Nr. Kandivali Flyover, Off. S.V.Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai – 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb5257C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…under section 148 of the Act. The Tribunal has further held that the additional income so offered by the assessee was done in good faith and to buy peace. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal ROOD 251 ITR 9, wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court CITSuresh Chandra Mittal r2QOOj 241 ITR 124 , where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…above. Thus the addition is solely on voluntary admission of assessee in good faith to buy peace and avoid litigation. In case of assessee no Vs. ACIT Circle-2,Jaipur material has been found corroborating the said advance. In CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Mittal (2011)251 ITR 9 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the assessee filed returns showing higher income after search to purchase peace and avoid litigation and department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender by the assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c). 5.1 It w…

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…ot voluntary. Hence, the ratio of decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 18. We have considered the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Suresh Chand Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC)/ 119 Taxman 429, a revised return was filed which was regularized by the Revenue, therefore, the explanation of the assessee was treated as bonafide whereas in the instant case the assessee has not filed any revised return and it was only during the course of assessment proceedings, he has admitted bogus loss. Therefore, the facts of the sai…

Navnitlal K Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-45, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

Section 139Section 15Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…te particulars of income as per explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). In support of his contention, the ld AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9(SC). 4.5 He has also relied upon the decision of coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Sanjoy Sankar Salvi vs ACIT dated 31/10/2011 as well as decision of Delhi Benches of this Tribunal in case of Shri Prem Arora vs DCIT dated 9th March 2012 in ITA number 4702/Del/2010. The Ld AR of the assessee has submitted that in the identical facts, the…

Fazal Sarang, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4451/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…further addition in the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A in regard to the said income and therefore the question of imposing Penalty on the above income declared does not arise as held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sureshchandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9. ii) On the addition of Rs.13,78,500/- made uls.68 without appreciating that the said Cash Deposits made in Bank account were not legally tenable and furthermore the same were satisfactorily explained. iii) On addition of Rs. 58,846/- on account of Mutual Fund Redemption without appreciating that same were Long term capital gains and therefore exe…

Fazal Sarang, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4450/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…further addition in the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A in regard to the said income and therefore the question of imposing Penalty on the above income declared does not arise as held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sureshchandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9. ii) On the addition of Rs.13,78,500/- made uls.68 without appreciating that the said Cash Deposits made in Bank account were not legally tenable and furthermore the same were satisfactorily explained. iii) On addition of Rs. 58,846/- on account of Mutual Fund Redemption without appreciating that same were Long term capital gains and therefore exe…

Technocrats Security Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Dismissed

ITA 1443/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S. Technocrats Security बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner Of Systems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 9(3) Vs. Unit C-2, Model Industrial Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colony, Vishweshwar Nagar, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Aarey Road, Goaregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct3068M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ “ई‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/s. Technocrats Security बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner of Systems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 9(3) Vs. Unit C-2, Model Industrial Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colony, Vishweshwar Nagar, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Aarey Road, Goaregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCT3068M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Haridas Bhat Department by: Shri A. K.…

Shri Cdr, Udai Singh, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

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

…and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal, [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433, upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124, where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed ITA No.2970/Del./2012 11 the income had furnished inaccurate pa…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Unisynth Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 5967/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh K. ArvindFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s not mean that there is concealment of income. 3.5. I further reply on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT V/s Suaraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC) b) CIT V/s Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) c) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Ker HC) d) Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) 3.6. In view of the above discussion, In my opinion penalty cannot be levied in present case. Thereby, the assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 14,53,833/-. Hence, t…

Anil Kumar Garg, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1845/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1845/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Garg, Acit – 23(3), बनाम/ D-1404, Lake Pleasant, Mumbai. V. Lake Home, A.S. Marg, Mumbai -400076. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaupg1553C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 68

…HELD THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS BEYOND THE KEN OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(l}(C), THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT THE CASE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN V. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99. IT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE DECISION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESH CHANDRA MITIAL [2001] 2511TR 9 (SC}. SO THERE IS NO MISSTATEMENT OF PERTICULARS, OR CONCEALMENT OF THE PERTICULARS OF THE INCOME,HENCE OUR CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C}. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LEARNED ITO IS BAD IN LAW ,AND SHOULD BE S…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.4593, 4594, 4595 & 4596/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) M/s. Golani Brothers Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai 303, Dalamal Chambers, 29, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 PAN/GIR No. : AACFG5348R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia Date of Hearing : 05/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.4593, 4594, 4595 & 4596/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) M/s. Golani Brothers Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai 303, Dalamal Chambers, 29, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 PAN/GIR No. : AACFG5348R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia Date of Hearing : 05/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4594/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.4593, 4594, 4595 & 4596/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) M/s. Golani Brothers Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai 303, Dalamal Chambers, 29, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 PAN/GIR No. : AACFG5348R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia Date of Hearing : 05/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment…