Dy, CIT v. Mahadik Bros.

84 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#25733 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,232 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dy, CIT v. Mahadik Bros.

Prateek Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…rt, CIT VS. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (b) Penalty proceedings are penal in nature. Elementary principles of criminal law will apply. It is a quasi-criminal proceedings. There should be conscious concealment - Dy, CIT v. Mahadik Bros. [2003] 84 ITD 1 (Pune). The apex court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (c) Pvt. Ltd. 322ITR 158 reiterated that disallowance of claim of expenditure does not amount to furnishing incorrect particulars of income as such, no concealment penalty can be levied based on that. In the case of CIT v, Suresh Chandra Mittal the Hon’ble (d) Supreme Court upheld t…

Sandeep Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Anupama P Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 925/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.925/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Asst. Cit, Central Circle-20, Smt. Anupama P. Jain Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, बिाम/ B-201, Minoo Minar, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Actpj 2249 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri T. A. Khan प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / : 10.07.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 06.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07, In The Matter Of Penalty Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…. So the benefits conferred under Explanation 5(2) to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable in the appellant's case. In this regard reference is invited to the following decisions: 1. South Indian Finance vs. ITO 39 ITD 370 (Cochin) 2. DCIT vs. Mahadik Brothers 84 ITD 1 (Pune) Further there are seized material to prove the appellant had unaccounted income and used in the construction of the building and the unaccounted income and investment in property was not disclosed in the original return of income filed by the appellant. So, I hold that the appellant has concealed the particulars of income to the extent of Rs.…