CIT v. Vasanth K. Handigund

327 ITR 233Reported decision2010#20509 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Vasanth K. Handigund

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

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

…47 at para 62 has observed that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings 10 and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. This Court in the case of VASANTH K HANDIGUND reported in 327 ITR 233, has held that when addition has been accepted to buy peace and avoid litigation and the explanation was found reasonable by the appellate authorities the cancellation of penalty was justified. This Court in the case of BHADRA ADVANCING PVT LIMITED reported in 210 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withd…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. CIT, CC-8(2), 6th floor, Room M/s Dorf-Ketal Chemical (I) No. 658, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Drof Ketal Towers, Road, Mumbai-400020. D’Monte Lane, Oriem, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. PAN No. AAACD3819P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr.Rajesh Ojha, & Assessee by : Mr. Nilesh Patel, AR Date of Hearing : 23/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/10/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed…

Sri Babu Reddy Appaiah, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2343/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Babu Reddy Appaiah, The Assistant No. 25, Vinayaka Nilaya, Commissioner Of Sy No. 179/2, J P Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, 8Th Phase, Circle – 3 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Abepa7257L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…that under these facts, the penalty imposed by the AO is not justified and the same should be deleted. 4. The ld. AR of assessee placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Vasanth K Handigund as reported in 327 ITR 233 (Karn). The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para 7 of the assessment order for ready reference. “7. While computing the capital gains, the assesse has claimed cost of construction of sheds of Rs.6,35,000/- (1985-86) and Rs.8,95,000/- (1989-90) and…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Gulbarga vs. M/S Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

…47 at para 62 has observed that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. This Court in the case of VASANTH K HANDIGUND reported in 327 ITR 233, has held that when addition has been accepted to buy peace and avoid litigation and the explanation was found reasonable by the appellate authorities the cancellation of penalty was justified. This Court in the case of BHADRA ADVANCING PVT LIMITED reported in 210 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return an…