Naginchand v. CIT

6 ITR 534Reported decision1938#14299 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)section 143(1)previous yearsection 143prescribedpersonindiabusinesscompanydocumentinterestsection 14

Judgments citing Naginchand v. CIT

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…thus has concealed its income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the popular sense of money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legitimate and exemptions (Naginchand v. CIT 6 ITR 534). Therefore, if an assessee falsely claims a deduction, it would amounts to concealing the particulars of his income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income within the meaning of the section 271(1)(c) and the assessee can be penalised 10. In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…thus has concealed its income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the popular sense of money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legitimate and exemptions (Naginchand v. CIT 6 ITR 534). Therefore, if an assessee falsely claims a deduction, it would amounts to concealing the particulars of his income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income within the meaning of the section 271(1)(c) and the assessee can be penalised 10. In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that…

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…ate particulars of such income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the popular sense of money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legitimate and exemptions (Naginchand v. CIT 6 ITR 534). Further reliance is placed on the following case laws. 1. CIT v. Gates 91 ITR 467 2. Cement Distributors v.CIT 60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID VS ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598 4 CIT v. Vilasben 192 ITR 214 5. CIT v. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 & 6. CIT v. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91. 5.11 In the light of the foregoing…

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…amount to concealment of the particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v. India Sea Foods, (1976) IPS ITR 708 (Ker); Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v. CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 12 M/s Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt Ltd. (Lah): CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)]. In this case, the appellant has claimed rental income by letting out its owned property and had also claimed various expenditure against the rent income received by it. 5.6. The Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that it is not a case of…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…es amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker). It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's i…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Ltd

ITA - 1030 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…s amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah): CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker) 7. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's…

Ecs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1248 / 2008HC Delhi26 Oct 2009
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…s amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)]. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's…

Naginchand v. CIT (6 ITR 534) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax