IAC. CIT v. Kejriwal Iron Stones

168 ITR 715High Court#16939 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Judgments citing IAC. CIT v. Kejriwal Iron Stones

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…by the Assessing Officer does not call for levy of penalty. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:- (i) New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Gujrat) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj.) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Petropruducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (v) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403 (All.) (vi) Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. Ito (ITAT Lucknow) ITA No.486/LKW/2016. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. Vinod Gugnani vs. ITO 10. Considered the rival submissions and mat…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ce of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is the particulars of income which is the common subject matter of both the charges which will b…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ce of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is the particulars of income which is the common subject matter of both the charges which will b…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ce of such finding, the order would be bad in law. Manu Engg Works 122 TR 300 (Gu), New Sorathia Engg, Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is the particulars of income which is the common subject matter of both the charges which will b…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Baroda vs. M/S. Fine Line Circuit Company, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…f such finding, the order would be bad in law - Manu Engg. Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj.), New Sorathia Engg. Co. 282 ITR, 642 (Guj), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau). Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC - CIT v. Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj). 5.5 At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is the particulars of income which is the common subject matter of both the charges which will be discu…

IAC. CIT v. Kejriwal Iron Stones (168 ITR 715) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax