CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals

360 ITR 385High Court2014#5865 most cited

What is CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on the basis of a rejected books of account and an estimated addition to profit. An estimated addition on its own does not justify the levy of penalty.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · estimated addition · rejected books of account · inaccurate particulars of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · addition made on estimated addition

Also reported as

32 Taxmann.com 192

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 253(2)surrender of incomesection 131(1)revision u/s 263section 271aabfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 41(1)furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 274sundry creditors

Judgments citing CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.951/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional AO: The ITO, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ALOPG2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pro…

Hetal Ramanlal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

…sessee on estimated basis, then there is no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Whitelene Chemicals [2013] 32 taxmann.com 192 (Gujarat)/[2013] 214 Taxman 93 (Gujarat) (Mag.)/[2014] 360 ITR 385 (Gujarat)[15-01-2013], the Gujarat High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed merely because books of account maintained by assessee were rejected and its profit was estimated on basis of fair gross profit ratio. Hetal Ramanlal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2008-09 - 5– 12. In the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Bombaywal…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…essee spotlighted Ld. co-ordinate benches decisions rendered in ‘Mun Gems Vs ACIT’ [2023, 155 taxmann.com 1], ‘Rajesh H Shinde Vs DCIT’ [2006, 103 ITD 360(Pune)] and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Whitelene Chemicals’ [2014, 360 ITR 385 (Guj)] 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [from now ‘ITAT-Rules’] perused the material placed on records and duly considered ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 the facts of…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…essee spotlighted Ld. co-ordinate benches decisions rendered in ‘Mun Gems Vs ACIT’ [2023, 155 taxmann.com 1], ‘Rajesh H Shinde Vs DCIT’ [2006, 103 ITD 360(Pune)] and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Whitelene Chemicals’ [2014, 360 ITR 385 (Guj)] 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [from now ‘ITAT-Rules’] perused the material placed on records and duly considered ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 the facts of…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…essee spotlighted Ld. co-ordinate benches decisions rendered in ‘Mun Gems Vs ACIT’ [2023, 155 taxmann.com 1], ‘Rajesh H Shinde Vs DCIT’ [2006, 103 ITD 360(Pune)] and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Whitelene Chemicals’ [2014, 360 ITR 385 (Guj)] 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [from now ‘ITAT-Rules’] perused the material placed on records and duly considered ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 the facts of…

S.Amit & Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3015/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal()

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…particular limb of the penalty and, therefore, the penalty is not leviable. In support of said contention, 4 ITA 3015/Mum/2023 S. Amit & Co. also relied on various judgments including by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj) and by the Bombay high Court in the cases of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Company Vs CIT (2022) 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bom) and Pr.CIT vs. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts Pvt, Ltd (2021) 124 taxmann.com 248 (Bom) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts Pvt Ltd (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC) wherei…

Ramnik Sushil Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. Assistant .CIT Circle (3), Thane

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2820/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ot carried any further. 15. The issue about the justifiability of levying of penalty when the addition is made on the basis of estimation, is an issue, which is also covered by decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Whitelene Chemicals, 360 ITR 385 (Guj) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj), which have been consistently followed by this Tribunal in various decisions. 16. Thus, considering the settled position and facts obtaining in this case viz; addition being made on the basis of estimate show the impugned ord…

Dombivli Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of imposition of penalty is hereby set aside

ITA 2734/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2011-12 Dombivali Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income B-42, Phase-I, Midc, Golavali Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan Village, Dombivali (E), (Respondent) Dist Thane 421 203 Pan : Aaacd5897M (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…y under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Rajasthan) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Whitelene Chemicals, 360 ITR 385 (Gujarat). 6. It is submitted that before the Assessing Officer, appellant had produced material to show that the impugned purchases were genuine and thus, even on facts, no addition could have been made. It is alternatively submitted that, in any event, the addition was restricted to Rs.89,628/- and thus, the penalty as originally imposed on th…

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…cealment can be levied on the income which has been assessed on estimate basis. Reference made to (a) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Del), (b) CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P & H), (c) CIT vs. Whiteline Chemicals [2014] 360 ITR 385 (Guj), (d) Shri Radhey Shyam vs. ITO [ITA No. 5268/Del/2015 decided on 31/10/2017 by ITAT Delhi]; 7. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the Order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad inasmuch as the Order dated 02-02-2018 passed in the quantum assessment by the Hon’ble ITAT has not been taken into account and the levy of penalty u/s…

Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 180/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah Vs. Dcit Prop: Shagun Art, 8, Ram Shyam Circle-6(1), Apartment, Nr. L. G. Hospital, Ahmedabad Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 [Pan No. Afqps3070R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr 04/10/2021 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTING THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah Vs. DCIT Prop: Shagun Art, 8, Ram Shyam Circle-6(1), Apartment, Nr. L. G. Hospital, Ahmedabad Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 [PAN No. AFQPS3070R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Karan Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR 04/10/2021 Date of Hearing: Date of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed again…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3530/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, advocateFor Respondent: Shri NK Bansal
Section 271Section 274Section 40Section 40A

…asis and it is a trite law that when addition is made on estimated basis, no penalty is leviable. She heavily relied on decision of CIT vs Metal products of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 150 ITR 714 and CIT vs white line chemicals (Gujarat High Court) 360 ITR 385. Therefore, she stated that as coordinate bench itself has given part relief to assessee on this issue penalty is not leviable. She further stated that for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 disallowance has been made by invoking provisions of section 40A (2) of act. She stated that it is a well-settled principle that disallowance under that…

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

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

…eported in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd (2008) 303 ITR 53 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT verses Kailash crockery house (1999) 235 ITR 554 (Patna); CIT verses metal products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT vs. Whitelene chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj); CIT verses Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (Allahabad); CIT verses Aero traders (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); CIT verses Modi industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (Punjab and Haryana) and CIT verses Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378. Further reliance is also made on the decisions reported in CIT verses Reliance Petro products (P)…

Suresh Jindal, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…following case laws:- - Decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714. - Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Whitelene Chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 - ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Ravi Haldia, Dinesh Haldia, Mamta Haldia vs. ACIT 92017) 60 ITR (Trib.) 651. - ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sonali A. Shah vs. ITO in dated 7.11.2016 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and to support the orders of the authorities below, he filed the Written Submissio…

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…va vs. ITO • CIT vs. P. rojes 356 ITR 703 (Mad) • Naresh Chandra Agrawal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (All) • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 362 ITR 160 (Kar) • CIT vs. Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680 (Mad) • CIT vs. Shyam RajSingh 367 ITR 74 (P &H) • CIT vs. Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) • CIT-II Lucknow Vs. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited MANU/UP/0358/2016 The above decision has been cited in support of the contention t…

Csango, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are hereby allowed

ITA 3905/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3903/M/13, I.T.A.3904/M/13 & I.T.A.3905/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95, 1996-97 & 1998-99) M/S. Csango बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 12(2)2 Ground Floor, Room No.123B, Vs. Narang Manor, Plot No.96-B, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 15Th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc4614L

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 50

…in ITA No. 93/M/2011 dated 10.04.2015 titled as Rishabh Impex is of the view that the assessment passed on purely estimation basis does not attract the penalty provision u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in [2014] 360 ITR 385 titled as Whitelene Chemicals (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) wherein it is held that the rejection of books of account on the basis of fair Gross Profit rate does not amount the concealment of income and concealment of particulars to evade the tax and no penalty is leviable on the basis of such grounds. In an another case cited as [2014] 44 taxmann…

Csango, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are hereby allowed

ITA 3904/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3903/M/13, I.T.A.3904/M/13 & I.T.A.3905/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95, 1996-97 & 1998-99) M/S. Csango बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 12(2)2 Ground Floor, Room No.123B, Vs. Narang Manor, Plot No.96-B, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 15Th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc4614L

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 50

…in ITA No. 93/M/2011 dated 10.04.2015 titled as Rishabh Impex is of the view that the assessment passed on purely estimation basis does not attract the penalty provision u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in [2014] 360 ITR 385 titled as Whitelene Chemicals (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) wherein it is held that the rejection of books of account on the basis of fair Gross Profit rate does not amount the concealment of income and concealment of particulars to evade the tax and no penalty is leviable on the basis of such grounds. In an another case cited as [2014] 44 taxmann…

Csango, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are hereby allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3903/M/13, I.T.A.3904/M/13 & I.T.A.3905/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95, 1996-97 & 1998-99) M/S. Csango बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 12(2)2 Ground Floor, Room No.123B, Vs. Narang Manor, Plot No.96-B, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 15Th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc4614L

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 50

…in ITA No. 93/M/2011 dated 10.04.2015 titled as Rishabh Impex is of the view that the assessment passed on purely estimation basis does not attract the penalty provision u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in [2014] 360 ITR 385 titled as Whitelene Chemicals (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) wherein it is held that the rejection of books of account on the basis of fair Gross Profit rate does not amount the concealment of income and concealment of particulars to evade the tax and no penalty is leviable on the basis of such grounds. In an another case cited as [2014] 44 taxmann…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the profession of civil contractor. An information was received from AIR that gross receipt from Contract work was refl…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2210/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the profession of civil contractor. An information was received from AIR that gross receipt from Contract work was refl…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2209/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the profession of civil contractor. An information was received from AIR that gross receipt from Contract work was refl…

CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals (360 ITR 385) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax