ITO v. RK Brothers

87 ITD 649Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#14521 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292CSection 274

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)section 292cpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 292section 29section 274concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing ITO v. RK Brothers

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dering that the disallowance made in this case on percentage basis of bogus purchases at par with addition made on the estimated basis in the referred judgements ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO Vs. RK Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649(Al) wherein it was held that concealment of income apparent from records, penalty for concealment can be imposed even on the basis of estimation of income. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act observing that the same was levi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dering that the disallowance made in this case on percentage basis of bogus purchases at par with addition made on the estimated basis in the referred judgements ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO Vs. RK Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649(Al) wherein it was held that concealment of income apparent from records, penalty for concealment can be imposed even on the basis of estimation of income. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act observing that the same was levi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKODIAM DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dering that the disallowance made in this case on percentage basis of bogus purchases at par with addition made on the estimated basis in the referred judgements ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO Vs. RK Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649(Al) wherein it was held that concealment of income apparent from records, penalty for concealment can be imposed even on the basis of estimation of income. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act observing that the same was levi…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in above terms

ITA 431/AHD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Shri Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT/D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…a case of mere estimate. However, by not allocating any part of expenses incurred on R&D pertaining to formulation business of eligible units, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars consciously. Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. R.K. Bros (2003) 87 ITD 649 (All.) has held that when concealment of income is apparent from the record, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) can be imposed even on the basis of estimate of income. It is also worthwhile to mention 5 I.T.A No. 431/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 1999-2000 Page No Sun Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. vs. ACIT that this disallowance has also increased the book profit u/s. 115JA. I…

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1044/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…e during the course of quantum appellate proceedings before him. He accordingly confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by relying on the decision of Allahabad bench of ITAT in the case of R.K. Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649 (All) wherein it was held that when concealment of income was apparent from record, penalty could be imposed even on basis of estimate of income. Thereafter, assessee moved an application for rectification u/s. 154 in the [I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2010-11 quantum proceedings and while allowing the same vide order dated 17.10.2014,…

M/S. MADHAV CONSTRUCTION,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3384/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 41Section 44A

…ccounts (not produced before the AO as well as before him) and certificate from the Architect to certify such value of work done, the rejection of books of accounts by the AO was held justify. 9. It is further stated that in the case of R. K. Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649 (All), it had been held that when concealment of income is apparent from record, penalty can be imposed even on the basis' of estimate of income. In the decision in the case of Kirit Dahyabnai Patel, dated 17/7/2009, reported in 285 DTR AMD (TM) (Trib) 380 it has been held that the fact of. penalty 5 . A.Y. 2009-10 proceedings in some or1 the year…

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A. RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D. R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…There may be ITA Nos.1911/Ahd/2015 Shri Baldevbhai Atmaram Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2011-12 cases where the facts may attract both the offences, and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences. 6. In the reported case of R K Brothers (2003) 87 ITD 649 (All) it had been held that when concealment of income is apparent from record, penalty can be imposed even on basis of estimate of income. In the decision in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel, dated 17.7.2009, reported in 285 DTK AHD (TM)(Trib) 380 it has been held that the fact of penalty proceedings in some of the years may have been dropped, w…

ITO v. RK Brothers (87 ITD 649) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax