M.S. Mohammed Marzook v. ITO

283 ITR 254High Court2006#17513 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing M.S. Mohammed Marzook v. ITO

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…431(ALL.) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable even when concealment of income is admitted by filing a revised return after detection of concealment. M. S. MOHAMMED MARZOOK (LATE) AND ANOTHER (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, [2006] 283 ITR 254 (MAD) Penalty- concealment of income-revised return filed after search proceedings - Finding by Tribunal that there had concealment of income-levy of penalty valid- Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 27(1)(c). Held that the Tribunal on the facts of the case, found that the omission or wrong statement by the assessee in the original return was not bona fide…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…to prove the genuineness of the NRE gifts. The Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the assessing officer." "This court had an occasion to consider the issue on the levy of penalty in the decisions reported in M.S. Mohammed Marzook v. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 254 (Mad): M.Shahuk Hameed Batcha v. ITI [2007] 292 ITR 585/[2008] 171 Taxman 19(Mad.) and M.Sajjanraj Nahar V. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230/155 Taxman 536 (Mad), wherein, this court had elaborately considered the case law on the subject and pointed out to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan (supra), rendered after the introd…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…); iii. Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal No. 698 of 2007 decided on 18-02-2011 (Cal); iv. M. Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 283 ITR 230 (Mad); v. M.S. Mohammed Marzook (Late) And Another Vs. ITO, 283 ITR 254 (Mad); vi. M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008 decided on 22-08-2017; vii. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 decided on 30-10-2013. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orde…

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)

…said to be a voluntary disclosure and, therefore, levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was justified in the absence of satisfactory explanation for the seized cash. Similarly in the case of M.S. Mohammed Marzook (Late) (Represented by L/H) & Am. vs. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 254 (Mad) in which revised return was filed after search and omission or wrong statement in the original return was not bona fide or due to inadvertence or mistake on the part of assessee, penalty was held to be justified. 1.3.5 In CIT vs. C. Ananthan Chettiar (2004) 192 CTR (Mad) 164 assessee having offered no explanation at all for disclosure of ad…