K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT

193 ITR 379High Court1992#11257 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

total income

Judgments citing K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT

ANKUR FINE PRODUCTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 44A

…ss the Assessing Officer disproves the assessee’s reconciliation or demonstrates fictitious transactions, the difference cannot be treated as income. 8. We also find guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Modi Rubber Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 379 (Del.), where it was held that statutory adjustments made to comply with indirect tax laws cannot be treated as income or disallowance under the Income-tax Act unless they are found to be false or fabricated. The principle laid down therein applies squarely to the present case. Having regard to the explanation furnished by the assessee, the statu…

INDIAN CHRONICLE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…6 (Annex. B); ✓ Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory-359 ITR 565 (Kar); ✓ MultivisionInfotech P. Ltd. - 88 taxman..com 874 (Ahd); ✓ Dharni Developers - 61 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai); ✓ CIT us. LakhdhirLalji - (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj); ✓ R. M. Bhatia vs. CIT-(1992) 193 ITR 379 (Guj); ✓ H. Lakshminarayana-61 taxmann.com 373 (Bang.); ✓ Autoriders India (P) Ltd.-191 TTJ 376 (Mumbai) 6. The Ld. Sr. Counsel has drawn our attention to the penalty notice dated 30.11.2009 issued by the AO, a copy of which was filed in a paper book. He submitted that from the said notice, it was evident that the AO had not been able to make up…

SHRI SHIVAJI DATTATRAY SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…alty was passed. In such scenario, the penalty imposed shall not be justified as held in the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) (ii) Padma Ram Bharali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 54 (Gau) (iii) K. M. Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379 (Guj) Therefore, on the context of principles of natural justice also, 5 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane such penalty cannot be imposed, if there is ambiguity in arriving at satisfaction by the AO. The basis of issuance of notice should remain the same while imposing penalty. If the notice is issued in the context of concealment of income, then the pe…

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member Amina Anvar vs DCIT,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 PAN – AGMPA5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 02.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 30.06.2022 passed under Sec…

TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR-40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3189/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…income”, but finally levied the penalty for concealing the income. Under identical set of facts, the co-ordinate bench deleted the penalty in the case of Dharni Developers (supra) by following the below mentioned decisions:- (a) K.M. Bhatia (Quarry) Vs. CIT (193 ITR 379)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Lakhdir Lalji (1972)(85 ITR 77)(Guj) (c) CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565)(Kar). The co-ordinate bench has followed the decision of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) to cancel the penalty levied in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) on identical set of facts, i.e., the penalty was initiate…

BINOD KUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed, as above

ITA 1481/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto Shri Binod Kumar Singh, C/O. V.J. Shah & Co., 401-406, ‘K’Building, 24, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 Pan:Ajaps5110J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cc – 18 &19, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…rdance with the basis on which the penalty has been ultimately imposed, the imposition of penalty in such circumstances would be invalid. At this stage, we may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) vs. CIT,193 ITR 379(Guj), wherein also similar proposition has been expounded, namely, that penalty proceedings having been initiated on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income would not validate the imposition of penalty on the ground of concealment. Our Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dharni Developers (supra) has also taken a similar view fo…

BINOD KUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed, as above

ITA 1477/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto Shri Binod Kumar Singh, C/O. V.J. Shah & Co., 401-406, ‘K’Building, 24, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 Pan:Ajaps5110J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cc – 18 &19, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…rdance with the basis on which the penalty has been ultimately imposed, the imposition of penalty in such circumstances would be invalid. At this stage, we may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) vs. CIT,193 ITR 379(Guj), wherein also similar proposition has been expounded, namely, that penalty proceedings having been initiated on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income would not validate the imposition of penalty on the ground of concealment. Our Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dharni Developers (supra) has also taken a similar view fo…

BINOD KUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed, as above

ITA 1476/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto Shri Binod Kumar Singh, C/O. V.J. Shah & Co., 401-406, ‘K’Building, 24, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 Pan:Ajaps5110J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cc – 18 &19, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…rdance with the basis on which the penalty has been ultimately imposed, the imposition of penalty in such circumstances would be invalid. At this stage, we may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) vs. CIT,193 ITR 379(Guj), wherein also similar proposition has been expounded, namely, that penalty proceedings having been initiated on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income would not validate the imposition of penalty on the ground of concealment. Our Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dharni Developers (supra) has also taken a similar view fo…

SHALINI KARAN KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5457/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 271(1)(c)

…l issue was considered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Dharni Developers (supra), wherein the contention of the assessee was accepted by following the decisions rendered in the following cases:- 3 Mrs. Shalini Karan Kumar (a) K.Bhatia Vs. CIT (1992)(193 ITR 379)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Lakhdhir Lalji (1972)(85 ITR 77)(Guj) (c) Samson Perinchery Vs. Asst. CIT (ITA No.5625/Mum/2013 (d) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565)(Kar) 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee on the legal issue urged by him. Accordingly, consistent with the v…

K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT (193 ITR 379) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax