Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

187 TTJ 722Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#17073 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B/BBSection 68

Judgments citing Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S. Korada Furniture Company Pvt Ltd., Hubli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) &Tps, Hubli

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

ITA 47/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep Kumar H.S., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…6) 237 Taxman 702 (Kar.) (iii) S.Chandrashekar v. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 538 (Kar.) (iv) Prince Consultancy (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR(T) 334 (Mumbai – Trib.) 8 M/s.Korada Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd. (v) Meherjee Cassinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 187 TTJ 722 (Mumbai – Trib.) (vi) Mohd.Sharif Khan v. DCIT (2017) 58 ITR (T) 260 (Jaipur-Trib.) (vii) Ms.Sandhya Gadkari Sharma v. DCIT (2016) 181 TTJ 462 (Mumbai – Trib.) (viii) Kanhaiyalal D.Jain v. ACIT (2017) 185 TTJ 553 (Pune – Trib.) 12. The concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry…

Confluence Project Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4489/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhi Rama Kartikeyan-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Bombay High Court 392 ITR 4 3. CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 72 Taxmann.com 241 Meadows SLP dismissed reported as 242 Taxman 180 4. Dilip N. Shroff Vs JCIT Hon’ble Supreme Court 291 ITR 519 5. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Mumbai Tribunal 187 TTJ 722 Ltd. Vs ACIT 6. Jayant B. Patel Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal The Ld. DR defended the same by placing reliance on the stand of Hon’ble Supreme court rendered in Jain Brothers Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107. 6.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record and deliberated on the judicial pronouncements as cited bef…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4032/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…the two branches mentioned under section 271(1)(c) for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meherjee cassiinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 187 TTJ 722 has considered an identical issue and held that non- striking of the irrelevant limb in the said notice did not communicate to the assessee as to which of the two charges it had to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice was reflection of non-application of mind by the AO, therefore, the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) w…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4031/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…the two branches mentioned under section 271(1)(c) for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meherjee cassiinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 187 TTJ 722 has considered an identical issue and held that non- striking of the irrelevant limb in the said notice did not communicate to the assessee as to which of the two charges it had to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice was reflection of non-application of mind by the AO, therefore, the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) w…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…the two branches mentioned under section 271(1)(c) for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meherjee cassiinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 187 TTJ 722 has considered an identical issue and held that non- striking of the irrelevant limb in the said notice did not communicate to the assessee as to which of the two charges it had to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice was reflection of non-application of mind by the AO, therefore, the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) w…

Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (187 TTJ 722) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax