ITO v. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (

46 ITD 331Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#8477 most cited

What is ITO v. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. ( authority for?

Concealment of income for penalty purposes can only relate to facts, not to conclusions or the interpretation of law.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

ITO v. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. · 46 ITD 331 · concealment of income · penalty · facts not law · Impulse India · Yasmin Properties

Judgments citing ITO v. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6723/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…com 519 (SC) 2. PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com Para 12 & 14 153 (Bom.) TRUST CREATES SEPARATION OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP FROM BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP, WITH THE LATTER IN FAVOUR OF BENEFICIARY 3. Yasmin Properties (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 331 (Bombay) Para 9 4. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai v. Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel 1979 SCC Para 12 OnLine Guj 43 / AIR 1980 Guj 165 5. Section 78 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - FIDUCIARY WITH NARROW POWERS IS NOT A BENEFICIAL OWNER SR. Reference Particulars NO. no. 6. HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT (Int. Tax) [2017] 78 Para 9 taxmann.com 174 (Mumbai -…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6722/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…com 519 (SC) 2. PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com Para 12 & 14 153 (Bom.) TRUST CREATES SEPARATION OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP FROM BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP, WITH THE LATTER IN FAVOUR OF BENEFICIARY 3. Yasmin Properties (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 331 (Bombay) Para 9 4. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai v. Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel 1979 SCC Para 12 OnLine Guj 43 / AIR 1980 Guj 165 5. Section 78 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - FIDUCIARY WITH NARROW POWERS IS NOT A BENEFICIAL OWNER SR. Reference Particulars NO. no. 6. HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT (Int. Tax) [2017] 78 Para 9 taxmann.com 174 (Mumbai -…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6721/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…com 519 (SC) 2. PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com Para 12 & 14 153 (Bom.) TRUST CREATES SEPARATION OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP FROM BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP, WITH THE LATTER IN FAVOUR OF BENEFICIARY 3. Yasmin Properties (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 331 (Bombay) Para 9 4. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai v. Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel 1979 SCC Para 12 OnLine Guj 43 / AIR 1980 Guj 165 5. Section 78 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - FIDUCIARY WITH NARROW POWERS IS NOT A BENEFICIAL OWNER SR. Reference Particulars NO. no. 6. HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT (Int. Tax) [2017] 78 Para 9 taxmann.com 174 (Mumbai -…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6720/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…com 519 (SC) 2. PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com Para 12 & 14 153 (Bom.) TRUST CREATES SEPARATION OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP FROM BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP, WITH THE LATTER IN FAVOUR OF BENEFICIARY 3. Yasmin Properties (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 331 (Bombay) Para 9 4. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai v. Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel 1979 SCC Para 12 OnLine Guj 43 / AIR 1980 Guj 165 5. Section 78 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - FIDUCIARY WITH NARROW POWERS IS NOT A BENEFICIAL OWNER SR. Reference Particulars NO. no. 6. HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT (Int. Tax) [2017] 78 Para 9 taxmann.com 174 (Mumbai -…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. The JCIT, R-5 (Present AO: DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 961/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 753/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 752/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT-2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 293/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The Addl. CIT- Range-5, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 484/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 754/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

M/S Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 404/IND/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw. Under such circumstances, no penalty should be levied. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following cases: • Impulse India (p.) Ltd. vs. ITO (40 ITD 36) (Delhi); • ITO vs. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. (31 TTJ 550)(Delhi); • Yasmin Properties Ltd (46 ITD 331); • DM Dahanukar v CIT (65 ITR 280) and • ITO vs. Bakul Cashew & Co. (28 ITD 197)(Coch) Further, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 Himat Vallanji Karia (36 ITD 76) ITD 76) has held that “Concealment can only be of facts and not of the ITD 76) ITD 76) conclusion” E…

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5168/MUM/2015[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 271(1)(c)

…Tax [1980] (124 ITR 15)(SC)(copy enclosed at pages 139 to 141 of paper book II) ii) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v, DCIT [1992] (40 ITD 70) (ITAT Mumbai) (copy enclosed at pages 142 to 148 of paper book II) iii) Yasmin Properties (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [1993] (46 ITD 331) (Mumbai ITAT) (copy enclosed at pages 149 to 154 of paper book II) iv) DCIT vs. Nokia India (P) Limited [2009] (124 TT} 145)(ITAT Delhi) (copy enclosed at pages 155 to 159 of paper book II) 13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit for the penalty so imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance of part of travelling expen…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…- 46 ITD 221 - ITAT Cochin Bench, Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 1986 (157) - ITR 0822 DEL, 181 ITR 410 (MP) (1990) 6 M/s. Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. J.K. Jajoo vs. CIT, 190 ITR 402 (All) (1991) CIT vs. Nepani Bin Company Trust, 46 ITD 331- ITAT Bombay Bench D - Yaasmin Properties (P) Ltd. vs ACIT. 3.1 The A.O. having considered the same observed in his order as under: "The contention of the assessee is considered but found not acceptable because of the following reasons: Regarding disallowance of dividend stripping u/s.94(7) amounting to Rs.50,03,626/-, it is worthwhile to note tha…

ITO v. RBGM Modi and Others Ltd. ( (46 ITD 331) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax