Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

247 CTR 620High Court2012#13837 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 762/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 274Section 54ESection 54G

…ernational - 97 TTJ 139 Ahmedabad ITAT-Rupam Mercantile Ltd 91 ITD 237/85 TTJ 609 Ahmedabad ITAT -Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd - 39 SOT 570 Ahmedabad ITAT-Abdu Rehman Mirza Family Trust Ahmedabad ITAT-SudhabenT. Parikh Guj. H.C. - Geeta Prints P. Ltd. 247 CTR 620 2. Disclosed/offered explanation - Merely on account of different opinion-No penalty Ahmedabad- ITAT-Karnavati Inf. P. Ltd. 193 Taxman 3 issue (XIII) Ahmedabad Guj State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 193 Taxman 26 (Digest) Delhi H.C. Bacardi 206 CTR 250 3. Even Claim is not sustainable in law- No penalty Mumbai ITAT- Ajit B. Zota 40 SOT 543 (AIF…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…for deduction u/s.80HHF was rejected on the ground that basic condition for claim of deduction U/S.80HHF was not satisfied by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) was not called for. Further, in the case of Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 620 (Guj.), it was held as under: - "the assessee had made full disclosure about the claim. The claim was also certified by the chartered accountant. Necessary ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 59 declarations in the prescribed forms were made, May be, in the case of the assessee, such claim on merits wa…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…for deduction u/s.80HHF was rejected on the ground that basic condition for claim of deduction U/S.80HHF was not satisfied by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) was not called for. Further, in the case of Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 620 (Guj.), it was held as under: - "the assessee had made full disclosure about the claim. The claim was also certified by the chartered accountant. Necessary ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 59 declarations in the prescribed forms were made, May be, in the case of the assessee, such claim on merits wa…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…for deduction u/s.80HHF was rejected on the ground that basic condition for claim of deduction U/S.80HHF was not satisfied by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) was not called for. Further, in the case of Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 620 (Guj.), it was held as under: - "the assessee had made full disclosure about the claim. The claim was also certified by the chartered accountant. Necessary ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 59 declarations in the prescribed forms were made, May be, in the case of the assessee, such claim on merits wa…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…for deduction u/s.80HHF was rejected on the ground that basic condition for claim of deduction U/S.80HHF was not satisfied by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) was not called for. Further, in the case of Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 620 (Guj.), it was held as under: - "the assessee had made full disclosure about the claim. The claim was also certified by the chartered accountant. Necessary ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 59 declarations in the prescribed forms were made, May be, in the case of the assessee, such claim on merits wa…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…for deduction u/s.80HHF was rejected on the ground that basic condition for claim of deduction U/S.80HHF was not satisfied by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) was not called for. Further, in the case of Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 620 (Guj.), it was held as under: - "the assessee had made full disclosure about the claim. The claim was also certified by the chartered accountant. Necessary ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 59 declarations in the prescribed forms were made, May be, in the case of the assessee, such claim on merits wa…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…T vs. EICON International (13) Ltd. 166 Taxman 12 (Del) 6. CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd. 177 Taxman 37 (Del) 7. CIT vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd. 211 CTR 543 (Del) 8. CIT vs. Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. 326 ITR 429 (P&H) 9. Geeta Prints (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 247 CTR 620 (Guj.) Keeping in view the facts and law discussed supra, the findings of the Assessing Officer that the appellant concealed income by making inadmissible claim and also furnished inaccurate particulars is factually wrong because it is only after the order of the ITAT dated 18.01.2010 for A.Y. 2004-05 the appellant company came to know that it w…

Geeta Prings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (247 CTR 620) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax