Harigopal Singh v. CIT

258 ITR 85High Court2002#445 most cited

What is Harigopal Singh v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Harigopal Singh v. CIT · 258 ITR 85 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty for estimated income · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concrete evidence of concealment · levy of penalty · section 271(1)

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 252

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 145(3)Section 148Section 274Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomesection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27section 147

Judgments citing Harigopal Singh v. CIT

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…on account of addition made by the ld. AO on application of a higher rate of profit. It was further submitted that the case of the assessee was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) in that case, the assessee had not maintained any accounts and filed his income on estimate basis. The ld. AO did not agree with the estimate and brought his income to tax by adopting another estimate. The Tribunal agreed that the income had to be assessed on estimate of turnover but reduced the extent of addition. The Hon’ble High Court had…

ETESH P. JAIN(KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1) , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of the revenue autho…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN (KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of the revenue autho…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN(HUF),THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of the revenue autho…

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ould be useful to refer to law laid down by various High Courts and Tribunals on issue of levy of penalty in case of adhoc additions/ disallowances before we decide the issue before us. 9. Their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Gopal Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85 (P&H) held as under : "In order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income o…

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills 303 ITR 053 ( P&H ). 10. The relevant portion of his written arguments are reproduced: 5 I.T.A. No. 70/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 “In CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income o…

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is Assessment year 2005-06 determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set…

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…271(1) (c) cannot be levied. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide para no. 7 held as under: “7. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 and Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (C) of section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the i…

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

ITA 1324/JPR/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 148Section 271(1)

…and also relied upon the judicial precedent which is as under:-  Shri Alok Haldia v. ACIT [2019 (4) TMI 673-ITAT Jaipur SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Ashok Kumar Gupta v. ITO [2018 (6) TMI 69-ITAT Jaipur   HARIGOPAL SINGH v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 7. That ld. CIT(A) without considering the submission and documents submits during the appeal proceeding, held that the assessee relied upon the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench in the case of M/s Shiv Lal Tak v. CIT, whereas, the assessee relied upon the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble ITAT in the matter of Shr…

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

ITA 1323/JPR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 148Section 271(1)

…and also relied upon the judicial precedent which is as under:-  Shri Alok Haldia v. ACIT [2019 (4) TMI 673-ITAT Jaipur SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Ashok Kumar Gupta v. ITO [2018 (6) TMI 69-ITAT Jaipur   HARIGOPAL SINGH v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 7. That ld. CIT(A) without considering the submission and documents submits during the appeal proceeding, held that the assessee relied upon the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench in the case of M/s Shiv Lal Tak v. CIT, whereas, the assessee relied upon the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble ITAT in the matter of Shr…

MANOJ SHANTILAL METHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 27(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan GadaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…dinate bench has deleted the penalty levied on the estimated addition. In the above said case, the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [258 ITR 85] and also the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316], wherein the Hon‟ble High Courts have held that the estimate of profit on the 3 Manoj Shantilal Mehta turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars o…

GUPTA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2850/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the assessee and confirmed penalty order. The Ld. AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd. 322 ITR 216 (Del) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR submits that but for scrutiny assessment the income would have escaped tax net. 3 ITA Nos.2844 & 28…

GUPTA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2844/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the assessee and confirmed penalty order. The Ld. AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd. 322 ITR 216 (Del) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR submits that but for scrutiny assessment the income would have escaped tax net. 3 ITA Nos.2844 & 28…

MANOJ SHANTILAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 27(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5636/MUM/2024[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Manoj Shantilal Mehta, Income Tax Officer, B-504, Rajshree Residency, Ward-27(2)(2), Mavroji Cross Lane, Vs. 4Th Floor, Ghatkopar (West), Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. Pan : Acjpm8523H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Gada For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Ketan GadaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…enalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on estimated addition was deleted. In the above said case, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Courtin the case ofHarigopal Singh vs. CIT [258 ITR 85] and also the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316], wherein the Hon‟ble High Courts have held that the estimate of profit on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, t…

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is Assessment year 2005-06 determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set…

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.635 & 636/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Amit Khemka ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata 114/1B, Cotton Street, Kolkata- Vs 700007. (PAN: AFYPK4310E) (assessee ) (Respondent) Present for: assessee by : Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement :20.08.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Incom…

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.635 & 636/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Amit Khemka ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata 114/1B, Cotton Street, Kolkata- Vs 700007. (PAN: AFYPK4310E) (assessee ) (Respondent) Present for: assessee by : Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement :20.08.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Incom…

OM DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) INCOME TAX DEPT , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalom Developers, Office No. 14, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 703 Pan: Aaafo9862A ..... Appellant Vs. Cit (A)/Nfac/Ito-27(2) I.T. Office, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Om Developers, Office No. 14, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 703 PAN: AAAFO9862A ..... Appellant Vs. CIT (A)/NFAC/ITO-27(2) I.T. Office, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Natekar, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 10/06/2024 Date of pronouncement : 14/08/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of…

JAIPUR GEM CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 327/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 327/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s. Jaipur Gem Crafts The ITO Vs. Behind Golimar Garden, Amer Road Ward 5(1) Jaipur 302 002 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFJ 4618 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Godha, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, BHPV Post Visakhapatnam NH-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAJCS7398P] (अपीलार्थी…

Showing 1–20 of 203 · Page 1 of 11

...