CIT v. Suresh G. Shah

289 ITR 110High Court2007#11428 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh G. Shah

Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…Court in case of ACIT Vs. J.K. D’costa 9 taxmann 88 and dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.03.1984. The decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal27 taxmann 447, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 289 ITR 110 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 80 taxmann.com 238 was relied upon. The ld. AR further relied upon the co-ordinate bench decision in 80 taxmann.com 772. It was further submitted that the LD PCIT does not have any power to initiate the penalty proceedings himself. In the end, the ld. AR further submitted the copies of the penalty notice…

Shri Vijay D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 2022/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ions has held that revisionary powers cannot be exercised for the same. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of i) CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel 278 ITR 3 (Gujarat), ii) CIT vs. Dr. Suresh G. Shah 289 ITR 110 (Gujarat) It was pointed out that while these decisions were rendered in the context of the pre amended provisions of section 271(1)© which did not grant power to the CIT to initiate penalty proceedings, but the ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Easy Transcription and Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 772 had held that the rati…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…e to a plausible, reasonable and legally sustainable conclusion in allowing the claims to the assessee. So far as non-initiation of penalty under section 271D/ 271E is concerned, We find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Suresh G. Shah [289 ITR 110 (Guj)] and CIT Vs Parmanand M. Patel [287 ITR 3 (Guj)] it was held that CIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings. Other also we find that the assessee has specifically in its reply to the SCN to the ld PCIT has stated that the cash was received only against the booking and no loan…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…e to a plausible, reasonable and legally sustainable conclusion in allowing the claims to the assessee. So far as non-initiation of penalty under section 271D/ 271E is concerned, We find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Suresh G. Shah [289 ITR 110 (Guj)] and CIT Vs Parmanand M. Patel [287 ITR 3 (Guj)] it was held that CIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings. Other also we find that the assessee has specifically in its reply to the SCN to the ld PCIT has stated that the cash was received only against the booking and no loan…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…as booking advances and not loan. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that for non initiation of penalty proceedings, the revision proceedings under section 263 cannot be made as held by Honourable Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Suresh G. Shah [289 ITR 110 (Guj)] and CIT v/s. Parmanand M. Patel [287 ITR 3 (Guj)]. Thus, the issue raised/ identified by ld PCIT will not survive. 18. On the eighth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification of loan from Manishbhai Sheladiya. The ld AR for the assessee submits that during assessment the AO raised specific query in notice under section…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…as booking advances and not loan. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that for non initiation of penalty proceedings, the revision proceedings under section 263 cannot be made as held by Honourable Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Suresh G. Shah [289 ITR 110 (Guj)] and CIT v/s. Parmanand M. Patel [287 ITR 3 (Guj)]. Thus, the issue raised/ identified by ld PCIT will not survive. 18. On the eighth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification of loan from Manishbhai Sheladiya. The ld AR for the assessee submits that during assessment the AO raised specific query in notice under section…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…as booking advances and not loan. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that for non initiation of penalty proceedings, the revision proceedings under section 263 cannot be made as held by Honourable Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Suresh G. Shah [289 ITR 110 (Guj)] and CIT v/s. Parmanand M. Patel [287 ITR 3 (Guj)]. Thus, the issue raised/ identified by ld PCIT will not survive. 18. On the eighth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification of loan from Manishbhai Sheladiya. The ld AR for the assessee submits that during assessment the AO raised specific query in notice under section…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member ITA NOs.933 & 935/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 & 2000-01 ACIT, M/s Roha Dyechem Ltd. Central Circle-43, Sarvodaya Mill Compound, बनाम/ Room No.659, 6th Floor, Tardeo Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN. No. AAACR4974P (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Shri B.S. Bist-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क…

P.Ramesh, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 1271/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1271/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 263Section 271A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1271/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri P. Ramesh, The Commissioner of No.100, Ammapet Main Road, v. Income Tax, Salem – 636 001. No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem – 3 PAN : ADYPR 3290 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh.…

CIT v. Suresh G. Shah (289 ITR 110) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax