ITO v. Ambica Agencied

243 ITR 812High Court#13824 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,628 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 22section 2(15)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)delay in filing appealfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 12aaconcealment of income

Judgments citing ITO v. Ambica Agencied

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…lled. So long as the said conditions are not fulfilled penalty cannot be levied, which has been settled in the following cases: a. ACIT v/s Advance Film Club 45 TTJ 259 (AHD) b. ITO v/s Ambica Agencied 50 ITD 31 (Hyd) (SMC) c. Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) v/s CIT 243 ITR 812 (Guj.) I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 7 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 7.2. The assessee further submitted that in the case of Navnitial Zaveri reported in 125 ITR 385 (Guj) it was held that only because there was variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtu…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…lled. So long as the said conditions are not fulfilled penalty cannot be levied, which has been settled in the following cases: a. ACIT v/s Advance Film Club 45 TTJ 259 (AHD) b. ITO v/s Ambica Agencied 50 ITD 31 (Hyd) (SMC) c. Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) v/s CIT 243 ITR 812 (Guj.) I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 7 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 7.2. The assessee further submitted that in the case of Navnitial Zaveri reported in 125 ITR 385 (Guj) it was held that only because there was variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtu…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…lled. So long as the said conditions are not fulfilled penalty cannot be levied, which has been settled in the following cases: a. ACIT v/s Advance Film Club 45 TTJ 259 (AHD) b. ITO v/s Ambica Agencied 50 ITD 31 (Hyd) (SMC) c. Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) v/s CIT 243 ITR 812 (Guj.) I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 7 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 7.2. The assessee further submitted that in the case of Navnitial Zaveri reported in 125 ITR 385 (Guj) it was held that only because there was variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtu…

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…lled. So long as the said conditions are not fulfilled penalty cannot be levied, which has been settled in the following cases: a. ACIT v/s Advance Film Club 45 TTJ 259 (AHD) b. ITO v/s Ambica Agencied 50 ITD 31 (Hyd) (SMC) c. Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) v/s CIT 243 ITR 812 (Guj.) I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 7 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 7.2. The assessee further submitted that in the case of Navnitial Zaveri reported in 125 ITR 385 (Guj) it was held that only because there was variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtu…

Atman Rajnikant Bhesdadiya L/R. Late Shri Rajnikant Lavjibhai Bhedadiya, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 271ASection 274Section 68

…delete the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- levied u/s. 271AAB(1)(b) of the Act. 11. It is well settled principle of law that penalty cannot be levied against estimation as held by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) Vs. CIT 243 ITR 812. Therefore the penalty of Rs.14,087/- levied u/s. 271AAB(1)(c) is also hereby deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assesse is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-12-2023 (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBERJUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 20/12/2023 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the above mentioned case dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue on the ground that in case of addition based on estimate, penalty was not leviable. 9.6 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of JumabaiPremchand (HUF) vs. CIT; 243 ITR 812, wherein there was a finding in the assessment Older that household expenses of the assessee were very low during the relevant assessment years, held that low household withdrawals is not conclusive for imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. 9.7 It has been held in many judicial pronouncements that in respect of estimated additions, no penalt…

Late Shri Sajid R. Dhanani, Indore vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 701/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 701, 702 & 703/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:(2005-06, 2007-08 & 2009-10) Late Shri Sajid R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T, (Through Legal Heir Smt. Suchitra S. Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Dhanani) Vadodara. Bf-8/9, Scheme No.74C, Vijay Nagar, Indore-452010. Pan: Abwpd8291K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…osed sources in order to attract the penalty provisions specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 812 wherein it was held as under: “The two things were different. If the house-hold expenses were unbelievably low, the orders which were passed in the assessment proceedings were proper. But in the proceedings for imposition of penalty, that fact alone was not sufficient. Something more was required. The burden was on the department to prove deliber…

ITO v. Ambica Agencied (243 ITR 812) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax