Devidas Sukhani v. DCIT

153 TTJ 12Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16810 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Devidas Sukhani v. DCIT

Mitsuboshi Belting India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 448/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 44A

… AMI Builders Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (46 CCH 334) (Mum ITAT)  ABR Auto Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (51 CCH 477) (Delhi ITAT)  Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya 175 TTJ 238 (Kol ITAT)  Shri Meghraj Kesaji Chaudhari vs ACIT (ITA No. 1296/Pun/2015)  DCIT vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (153 TTJ 12) (Nagpur ITAT Penalty cannot be levied on bonfide and inadvertent error of the assessee :-  Reliance Petrochemical Pvt Ltd (322 ITR 158) (Supreme Court)  Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) Penalty cannot be levied when assessee voluntarily discloses wrong claim during assessment proceedings.  CIT vs Blue Star Ltd (…

M/S Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…epted by the Assessing Officer, there will be no concealment of income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. 13. Referring to the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in 153 TTJ 12, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that regarding of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is sine-qua-none for initiating the 7 penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Mere observations that penalty proceedings being initiated separately is not enough. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble G…

Robin Bipin Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. Acit- Cc-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1St Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm8343D Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. ACIT- CC-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1st Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 PAN/GIR No. AABPM8343D Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri B.V.Jhaveri Revenue by Ms. Beena Santosh Date of Hearing 18/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement 21/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 21, Mumbai dated 28/03/2016 for the A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. In this…

Parag M. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1233/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

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

…vily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal Pune Bench in the case of Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs ITO 154 TTJ 46, Tribunal Jodhpur Bench in the case of Devidas Sukhani Vs DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Tribunal Nagpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana 153 TTJ 12. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities but could not bring any distinguished decision. 4 Parag M. Shanghvi ITA No.1232 to 1235/Mum/2012 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions brought to our notice. The undisputed fact is that the ret…

Parag M. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1232/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

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

…vily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal Pune Bench in the case of Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs ITO 154 TTJ 46, Tribunal Jodhpur Bench in the case of Devidas Sukhani Vs DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Tribunal Nagpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana 153 TTJ 12. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities but could not bring any distinguished decision. 4 Parag M. Shanghvi ITA No.1232 to 1235/Mum/2012 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions brought to our notice. The undisputed fact is that the ret…

Devidas Sukhani v. DCIT (153 TTJ 12) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax