J.P. Sharma & Sons. v. CIT

151 ITR 333High Court1985#19244 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing J.P. Sharma & Sons. v. CIT

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…im of special allowance suo moto and before any explanation was sought by ld.AO in this regard, therefore penalty imposed deserves to be deleted. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.P. Sharma 86 Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1985) reported in 151 ITR 333 (Raj) held that filing of revised return (revised computation in the assessee's case) as to levy penalty under section 271 (1)(c). Similarly, Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vijay, Jaipur v. ITO in ITA No. 58/JP/2016 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 04.10.2017 held that "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case w…

Bhagirath Mal, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…cannot be brushed aside. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., so cited by the ld. AR as above, and judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.P. Sharma & Sons Vs. CIT reported in 151 ITR 333 (so cited by ld. AR), we are of the opinion that it is a case where benefit of doubt is to be given to the assessee that it was an inadvertent and bonafide error on the part of assessee without knowing the nitty- gritty of the taxation laws and it was not a case of assessee trying to conceal its income. Considering the facts and in the circumstan…

Prima Private Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.539/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prima Private Ltd. T-73, Midc Bhosari, Pune-411026. Pan : Aabcp1938J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-10, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 13, Pune Dated 26.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. A.O. Erred (And Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Conforming) In Levying The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.13,04,400/-. 2. The Ld. A.O. Erred In Concluding That The Assessee Concealed The Income, Disregarding The Fact That The Assessee Had Offered The Income Sue Motto. 3. The Appellant Craves Its Right To Add To Or Alter The Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…bmitted that failure to include such income when deliberate does not attract the penalties as it is a case of omission on the part of the assessee or his agent. Relying on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court’s judgement in the case of J.P. Sharma & Sons vs. CIT, 151 ITR 333 (Raj.), ld. Counsel submitted that correcting the omission, if any, before the ITO discoveries it and when the revised return was filed voluntarily by the assessee, the assessee could be considered ‘honest’ and cannot be held guilty of deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. Further, relying on another judgement of the Jurisd…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/s. NSE. IT Ltd, DCIT 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, v. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCN0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Sunil Nahta Revenue by : Shri. T.A Khan(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 14-02-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28…