Gian Chand Batia v. DCIT

61 ITD 24Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18122 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 132(1)Section 132(1A)Section 250Section 271(1B)

Judgments citing Gian Chand Batia v. DCIT

Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…jarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company Vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR (306) (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia Vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24 (All). Therefore, where Assessing Authority itself is not sure about nature of default, the penal action u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.03.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 07/03/2025 btk Sujan I…

Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Ward Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1516/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…jarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT, 61 ITD 24 (All.). Therefore, where the AO is not sure about the nature of default and has confirmed the penalty on an altogether different ground than for which satisfaction under Section 271(1B) was formed, the penal action 3 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 7. Consequently, the penal order passed by the AO dated 17.02.2017 is…

Siddhraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(AIL). Therefore, where concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(l)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." The facts of the case in hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Kantibhai Naranbhai Prajapati (supr…

Shri Kaushikaben A. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3331/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kaushikaben A Patel ......…………......Appellant 8, Lavkush Society, Nr. Vyas Wadi, Nava Wadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013 [Pan : Ainpp 3805 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent Ward 2 (2)(2), Ahmedabad

Section 271(1)(c)

…el Vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, wher e concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Consequently, the penalty order of the AO dated 25/11/2013 is set aside and penalty imposed thereby is cancelled." 6. Since the imposition of penalty stands deleted on the aforesaid l…

The ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Rameshwar Ramnivas Maniyar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3206/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R

…Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, where concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Consequently, the penalty order of the AO dated 25/11/2013 is set aside and penalty imposed thereby is cancelled.” ITA No. 3206/Ahd/15 [ITO vs. Shri Rameshwar R. Maniyar] A.Y. 2011-12…