Dayabhai Girdharbai v. CIT (80m)

32 ITR 677High Court1957#9203 most cited

What is Dayabhai Girdharbai v. CIT (80m) authority for?

A revised return filed after the department obtains information and confronts the assessee attracts penalty.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Dayabhai Girdharbai v CIT · 32 ITR 677 · revised return penalty · concealed income · penalty for disclosure · assessment · income tax act · penalty provisions · filing revised return

Judgments citing Dayabhai Girdharbai v. CIT (80m)

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…revised return. The revised return being filed only after the Department got information which was confronted to the assessee, penalty is attracted. Similar view has been upheld by several courts in the following judgments:- > Dayabhai Girdharbai Vs CIT (80m) 32 ITR 677 > CIT Vs Haji P. Mohammed (Ker) 132 ITR 623 > Mahavir Metal Works Vs CIT (P&H) ~ > Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs CIT (Raj) 163 ITR 440 > S.R. Arulprakasam Vs Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (Mad) 163 ITR 487 > F.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (Gauhati) 102 ITR 408 > CIT Vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (Mad) 110 ITR 602 > Ravi & Co. Vs ACIT (Mad) 271 ITR 286 5.3 It is an o…

Sanjeev Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6886/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Sanjeev Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Sanjeev Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Sanjeev J Ain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6883/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Sanjeev J Ain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6882/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Rishabh Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6881/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Rishabh Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…2 ITR 29 ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 6 " LMP Precision Engg. Vs. DCIT (Guj) 330 ITR " CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (All.) 331 ITR 458 " Biiand Ram Hargan Das (All) 171 ITR 390 " Ravi and Co. Vs. ACIT (Mad.) 271 ITR 286 " Dayabhai Giridharbhai Vs, CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 " Mahavir Metal Work Vs. CIT (PAH) 92 ITR 513 5.9 In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2017)(SC) 246 taxmann 373 (SC) it was held by the Apex court that additional income detected by the department and declared by the appellant, consequent to search action would attract penalty provisions u/S.…

Shri Harsh Sidana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2590/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…13. On the contrary the Ld. DR submitted that the details shown in form 26 AS has to be accepted as receipts of the assessee for the year under consideration. He placed his reliance upon the decision of Dai Bhai Girdhar Bhai reported in 321 ITR 677 (BOM) and 132 ITR 623 (KER). 14. We have perused arguments advanced before us by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 15. It is observed that assessee had filed a lot of details before the authorities which deserves to be verified in detail. However neither Ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report, nor did Ld. AO conduct any enquiry to verify th…

Shri Harsh Sidana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2589/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…13. On the contrary the Ld. DR submitted that the details shown in form 26 AS has to be accepted as receipts of the assessee for the year under consideration. He placed his reliance upon the decision of Dai Bhai Girdhar Bhai reported in 321 ITR 677 (BOM) and 132 ITR 623 (KER). 14. We have perused arguments advanced before us by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 15. It is observed that assessee had filed a lot of details before the authorities which deserves to be verified in detail. However neither Ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report, nor did Ld. AO conduct any enquiry to verify th…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ed as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Then, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 20/12/2007 increasing the business income by Rs. 17,95,551/-. In the case of Vadilal Ichhachand v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 569(Bom); Dayabhai Girdharbhai v. CIT(1957) 32 ITR 677 (Bom), it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the assessee cannot escape liability for penalty by filing revised return after queries from the authority concerned. 6.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UoI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the wilful c…

Gopal V. Gorwani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6627/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Madu Gorwani, Asst Cit - 19(3), R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Gopal V. Gorwani, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. “Palatial”, 21St Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaypg4064C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal & Miss Neha Paranjpe, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Miss Neha Paranjpe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, D.R
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rt's decision in the case of G.C Aggarwal (186 ITR 571) and Kerala High Court in the case of EC Josy.. & Bros. (240 ITR 818). He has also relied upon three other decisions viz. (i) CIT vs. Angara Satyam (AP) 37 ITR 230, (ii) Dayabhai Girdharbhai vs. CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677 & (iii) CIT vs. Gopal Krishna Singhania (All) 98 ITR 27) in sub para 3.3 of the order, in support of the stand taken by him that imposition of penalty in reassessment proceedings for concealment in original proceedings is valid. The AO, accordingly computed the minimum penalty at Rs.44,44,166/- and maximum penalty at Rs.1,33,32,498/-, however, he…