What is CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions or disallowances are made on an estimation basis during assessment.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (280 ITR 487), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 275, Section 132, Section 133A, Section 145.

CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (280 ITR 487)

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2015-16 Raees Alam Siddqui, vs. Dy. CIT, Qazi Tola, Ghazipur, U.P. Range-1, Varanasi PAN: AICPS0379L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty under section 271…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Santosh Shivaji Lad, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…ance is made on estimation basis. 7.14. In the below mentioned judgments it has been held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on estimate basis. • CIT vs Smt K Meenakshi Kutty in 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) • CIT(A) vs Valmik bhai H Patel in 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd in 216 ITR 92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Lt…

Maruti Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…levied against the estimation of income, therefore the penalty levied by the lower authorities liable to be deleted. Sr. Case Law Citation Judicial Forum No. 1 Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR110 Gujarat 2 Navjivan Oil Mills 252ITR417 Gujarat 3 Valmikbhai H Patel 280 ITR 487 Gujarat 4 Bombaywala Readymade 55 taxmann.com Gujarat Stores 258 5 Hariyana Textile 741 of 2009 Gujarat Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6 I - serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1044/Ahd/2018 Ahmedabad 7 Anil Abhubhai Odedara 117 taxmann.com Rajkot 490 8 Thakorbhai & Company 641/SRT/2023 Surat I.T.A No. 1633/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. V…

Babul Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babul Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Urmin House, Sindhu Bhawan Income-Tax, Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Circle-1(1)(1), Gujarat-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcb 1866 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babul Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Urmin House, Sindhu Bhawan Income-tax, Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Circle-1(1)(1), Gujarat-380054 Ahmedabad PAN : AABCB 1866 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee by : Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.10.…

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

…oth the cases, the Revenue has not preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and thus the appellate orders have attained finality. 7.2. The Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon various case laws: i. CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Prem Dass (No. 2) (2001) 248 ITR 237 (P&H) iii. CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Genning 359 ITR 562 (Kar.) iv. CIT v. Aerotraders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) v. CIT v. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) vi. ACIT v. Shivam Projects 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 8. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported…

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 619/AHD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

…oth the cases, the Revenue has not preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and thus the appellate orders have attained finality. 7.2. The Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon various case laws: i. CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Prem Dass (No. 2) (2001) 248 ITR 237 (P&H) iii. CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Genning 359 ITR 562 (Kar.) iv. CIT v. Aerotraders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) v. CIT v. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) vi. ACIT v. Shivam Projects 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 8. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pacl Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2884/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, however, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,51,51,671/- which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the ratio laid down in the following cases: i) JK Jajoo v CIT 181 ITR 410(MP) ii) CII v Ajay Hari Dalmia 157 ITR 145 (Del) iii) Cafco Syndicate Shipping Company 294 ITR 134 (Mad) iv) Jain Bros v Union of India 771 ITR 107 (SC) v) Valmikhbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487 (Guj) As far as brokerage/commission are concerned, all the details are available with the assessee and the vouchers for the payment for brokerage and commission also exit. All the PAN nos are available and tax has been deducted at source. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the expenses. Penalty proceedings are separate from assessme…

Thakorbhai & Company, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. Pan No. Aabft 4392 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…estimated additions. To support his view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 86 Taxman 30 (Guj) (ii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs CIT (2002) 124 Taxman 392 (Guj) (iii) CIT Vs Valimkbhai H patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj) (iv) ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Stores (2015) 55 taxmann.com 258 (Guj) (v) CIT Vs Hariyana Textile Industries P ltd. Tax Appeal No. 741 of 2009 dated 28/06/2016 (vi) ITA No. 1044/Ahd/2018 I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT order dated 02/02/2022 (vii) Anil Abhubhai Odedara Vs ITO (2020) 117 taxmann.com 490 (Rajkot-Trib) 4. On the other hand…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…terms of explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act 1961 and as held in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 1987 168 ITR 705 SC ad again approved in CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) as also followed in CIT Vs Valmikbhai H Patel 2006, 280 ITR 487 (Guj). 8. Ld. CIT(A) Valsad has failed to appreciate in facts and in law that investment in flat of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been taxed in A.Y. 1996-97 and such income is taxed second time and it is significant appreciate that such investment is also subject to penalty; copy of assessment order and penalty order for A.Y. 1996-1997 is enclosed herewith…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rted in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to submit that the AO has not cancelled much less intimated the assessee as to whether he proposed to levy the penalty for concealment…

Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.DR

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

…inality. Against the estimation of income, the ld.AO has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are against the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subhas Trading Co., 22 ITR 110 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Valmikbhai H. Patel, 280 ITR 487 (Guj). The assessee further pleaded that this addition was made on estimate basis does not prove either inaccurate particulars is furnished or income is concealed by the assessee. Therefore, levy of penalty is liable to be deleted. 7. In reply, the Ld.DR has strongly relied upon the orders passed by the CIT(A) and that of the AO. He submitted th…

I- Serve System Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1044/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…nd that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed in the absence of any evidence to conclusively show that there was concealment of income. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkbhai H. Patel, 280 ITR 487 (Guj.), to contend that when the ad- hoc disallowance/addition is made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. [I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2010-11 7. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of assessm…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ect of estimated additions, no penalty can be imposed, a few case laws on this issue are enumerated below:- > CIT vs. Smt. K. MeenakshiKutty 258ITR 494(Mad). 6 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., > Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85(P&H). > CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). > CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). > CIT vs. Lallubhaijogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) > CIT vs. Shivnarayanjamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 IT…

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee relies on following case law:- 21 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf (i) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 125 Taxmann 252/258 ITR 85 (P &H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). (Ill) CIT(A) vs. ValimkbhaiH. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (MP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs, CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)J (vlii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 92 (P&H)] (x) CIT Vs. D…

M/S. Autobat Batteries Ltd., Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1437/AHD/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1437/Ahd/2014 & 2351/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah (in

…lea raised on behalf of the assessee that penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act ought not to have been imposed on the assessee on such estimated additions in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel 280 ITR 487 (Guj). While AO may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum proceedings, such disallowance/additions that too on estimated basis, could not ITA No. 1437/Ahd/14 & 2351/Ahd/16 [M/s. Autobat Batteries Ltd. vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2001-02 - 4 - automatically fall within mischief of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the or…

CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel

What is CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Santosh Shivaji Lad, Bangalore

Maruti Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Babul Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pacl Ltd., New Delhi

Thakorbhai & Company, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

I- Serve System Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

M/S. Autobat Batteries Ltd., Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad