(i) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co.

146 ITR 145High Court1984#19158 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing (i) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co.

Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Binna Nitin Parikh V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) W1, Sudantta Apartments Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor 10A Mount Pleasant Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpp1671P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri C.T. Mathews

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…t was ever accepted by the AO or an understanding to that effect reached between the assessee and the AO, is not sustainable”. 11. We draw your honour’s kind attention towards the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of CIT Poona vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (146 ITR 145) (Annexure-E) which is as under: “The submission of Mr. Sajnani, the learned counsel for the Revenue, is that the assessee had in fact admitted the concealment of income and hence it was not necessary for the Revenue to prove the same. It was submitted by him that in view of this the burden was on the assessee to show that there was no concealmen…

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suyog BhaveFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.474/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Office No.8, Wonder City Building, Katraj By Pass Road, Katraj, Pune-411 046. PAN : AATFS8504N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suyog Bhave Revenue by : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.12.2019 घोषणा…

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri. V.G Ginde and ShriramFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…Guj) (ii) National Textiles Vs. CIT (249 ITR 125) (iii) Shri Chandrakant J. Shah Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18(2)(4), Mumbai (ITA No. 1236/ Mum/ 2006, dated 16.03.2012) (iv) Addl. CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills (125 ITR 243) (v) CIT Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (146 ITR 145) (vi) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh (214 CTR 147)(P&H) (vii) Satish Babladi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-36 (ITA No. 345 and 346/Mum/2015). The Ld. A.R. further averred that though it remained as a matter of fact that the quantum addition of Rs. 45,15,884/- which was claimed by the assessee as a gift received from his nephew, viz. Sh. Arun Jatia was not acce…

Rapid Inexci Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 6683/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…isfaction of the Assessing Officer which lead to the impugned addition. Learned AR placed reliance on the following case laws to contend that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not liable under the circumstances :-  CIT Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (1084) 146 ITR 145 (Bom)  Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 406(Bom)  CIT Vs. Mrs. Baljeet Jolly (2003) 263 ITR 239 (Del) 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order passed by learned CIT(A). 5. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the contention of the assessee.…