Grass Field & Resorts P Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

388 ITR 395High Court2016#20708 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing Grass Field & Resorts P Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Ramchandraudaysinghjadhavrao, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Pune

ITA 1399/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

…CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta [2018] 92 taxmann.com 229 (Del.) and the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Grassfield Farms & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT [2016] 388 ITR 395 (Raj.) he held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is leviable on the income disclosed during the survey proceedings unless the assessee files cogent explanation regarding not declaring the said income earlier. Since the assessee in the instant case has not filed any cogent explanation before the Assessing Officer, he upheld the acti…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF

ITAT/144/2024HC Calcutta06 Nov 2024

Bench: :

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) without considering the judgment reported in the cases of Grass Field & Resorts P Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 388 ITR 395 (Raj), Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3 The short issue which falls for consideration i…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…an assessee has clearly declared gifts received from an outsider in the accounts books, the mere fact that the donor was not found at the given address, can be a ground to impose penalty for concealment. 15.Grass Field Farms And Resorts P. Ltd. Vs DCIT [2016] 388 ITR 395 (Raj) Taking into consideration the material on record and voluminous documents found during the course of survey, the statements and offering of income during the course of survey, could not be said to be voluntary as it was a clear cut admission. 16.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs CIl [2017] 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay) Where opportunity of being heard w…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 751/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

…on’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 212 taxman 519 /254 CTR 509 (Delhi) as well as decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional 4 M/s. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd. High Court in the case of Grass Field Farms Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 388 ITR 395 (Raj.) and submitted that the disclosure made by the assessee in the revised return only because of the material and documents found during the survey and statement was recorded. Therefore, the same cannot be held as voluntary. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 35…