Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel

306 ITR 179High Court2008#20429 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271FSection 273BSection 69Section 144Section 271(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271bbsection 271casection 271basection 271csection 271esection 271fsection 273bsection 271dsection 271bsection 271aasection 271a

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…be useful to discuss some relevant judicial precedents on the subject. ITA Nos. 705 to 707/Ahd/2025 Avani Dipakbhai Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 6– 12. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1979-80 on 23-3-1982 showing amount received on sale of agricultural land as exempt in view of Bombay High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Shet v. ITO which was delivered only in July, 1980, a bona fide belief as to exemption of said income could be ente…

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…be useful to discuss some relevant judicial precedents on the subject. ITA Nos. 705 to 707/Ahd/2025 Avani Dipakbhai Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 6– 12. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1979-80 on 23-3-1982 showing amount received on sale of agricultural land as exempt in view of Bombay High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Shet v. ITO which was delivered only in July, 1980, a bona fide belief as to exemption of said income could be ente…

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…be useful to discuss some relevant judicial precedents on the subject. ITA Nos. 705 to 707/Ahd/2025 Avani Dipakbhai Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 6– 12. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1979-80 on 23-3-1982 showing amount received on sale of agricultural land as exempt in view of Bombay High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Shet v. ITO which was delivered only in July, 1980, a bona fide belief as to exemption of said income could be ente…

M/S Bharat Furnishing Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/34/2002HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 271(1)(a)

…as the factum that the return was delayed, the same is accepted and is not in dispute. Justification and cause for the delay is the issue in dispute. 11. Decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel, [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Guj) and Viswam and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1993] 201 ITR 291 2014:DHC:3853-DB ITA 34/2002 Page 10 of 10 are distinguishable. In Viswam and Company (supra), the assessee had sought reference before the High Court and penalty was imposed for a period of o…