Nayan C. Shah v. ITO

386 ITR 304High Court2016#5151 most cited

What is Nayan C. Shah v. ITO authority for?

Submitting an incorrect claim in law for expenditure does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Nayan C. Shah v. ITO · 386 ITR 304 · 69 Taxmann.com 256 · section 271(1)(c) · inaccurate particulars · incorrect claim in law · penalty for expenditure

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 256

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Nayan C. Shah v. ITO

Ram Kishore Meena, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd, Morak, Kota

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 350/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 The ACIT, cuke Mangalam Cement Limited Circle-2, Vs. Aditya Nagar Morak, Aditya Nagar, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM6602Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Navsari

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, I.T.O., Shantinagar Society, Ranifaliya, Ward-2, Vs. Vansda, Navsari-396580 (Gujarat) Navsari. Pan No. Acypd 0673 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 274Section 80T

…in penalty order. If the Assessing Officer failed to mention specific charge, the penalty is not justified. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nayan C Shah Vs ITO (2016) 386 ITR 304 (Guj). 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was not a State Government or Central Government employee. The employer of assessee in Form AS-26 has clearly mentioned that only Rs. 3.00 lacs is exempt, out of total leave encashment of…

Shri Paresh K. Sorathiya, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Belgaum [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom); decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj); Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO 386 ITR 304 (Guj); New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Allarakhu B. Memon & Bilal B. Memon in ITA Nos.2388-2390/AHD/2016 dated 15.11.2018 and in R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in ITA No.2130/AHD/2014/SRT dated 04.02.2021. 10 Sh. Paresh Sorathiya 11. On merit the ld AR for the assessee submits that the deposits in second account with I…

Chimanbhai A. Kantesaria, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…concealment of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not specific charge of penalty is not sustainable. To support his contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nayan C. Shah Vs. ITO 386 ITR 304 (Guj). 6 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that during the assessment, assessee failed to substantiate his genuineness of loan of Rs.6,00,000/- received from Kishorbhai G Savani. The assessee could not substantiate the creditwort…

Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…40(a)(ia) of the Act in relation to the amount paid on which the tax was not deducted at source should come under purview of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO, 386 ITR 304. A.Y. 2009-10 Page 3 of 4 7. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). Ld. D.R. submitted that the Tribunal has sustained the addition in respect of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and held that liability of TDS deduction does not arise. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the said finding cannot be t…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…egal position prevailing at the relevant time. Merely submitting an incorrect claim in law for expenditure would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars : of income. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Nayan t. Shah v. ITO ( 2016) 386 ITR 304 (Guj HC). 9.14 In Price Waierhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that calibre and expertise of assessee have little to do with inadvertent error. In that case the assessee-firm engaged in providing multi- disciplinary management consultancy services filed its return of income along w…

M/S. Bhawani Casting Pvt. Ltd., Punjab vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1754/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…f the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars as it did not affect the taxability nor there was any such motive to claim the expenditure. 8. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO (2016) 386 ITR 304 (Gujarat) and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in New Horizon India 4 ITA No.1754/Del./2016 Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 12 ITR (T) 332 (Delhi) by deciding the issue in favour of the assessee that merely submitting incorrect claim in law for expenditure would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. In the instant case, AO has levi…

Trupti Piyush Shah, Surat vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-3(3), Surat

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

ITA 187/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…n absence of a specific charge, the penalty so levied should be directed to be deleted. In support, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT, decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C Shah vs ITO 69 Taxmann.com 256 and decisions of various Coordinate Benches. 3. The ld Sr DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and submitted that even where in the show-cause notice, the charge is not specific, the same cannot be held fatal to the penalty proceedings. It was further submitted that while passing the penalty order, the AO has given a specific…

Trupti Piyush Shah, Surat vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-3(3), Surat

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

ITA 186/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…n absence of a specific charge, the penalty so levied should be directed to be deleted. In support, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT, decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C Shah vs ITO 69 Taxmann.com 256 and decisions of various Coordinate Benches. 3. The ld Sr DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and submitted that even where in the show-cause notice, the charge is not specific, the same cannot be held fatal to the penalty proceedings. It was further submitted that while passing the penalty order, the AO has given a specific…

Popley Diamond and Gold Plaza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1841/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ection 271(1)(c) of the Act should be deleted. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC); ii) Nayan G. Shah v/s ITO, [2016] 386 ITR 304 (Guj.); iii) Netambit Value First Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no. 1704/Del./2016, dated 16.02.2018; and iv) Tanushree Basu v/s ACIT, ITA no.2922/Mum./2012, dated 22.05.2013. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have considered…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2733/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2731 to 2733/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/s. M/s. RDS Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. PAN : AABFR4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.03.2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2732/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2731 to 2733/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/s. M/s. RDS Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. PAN : AABFR4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.03.2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2731/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2731 to 2733/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/s. M/s. RDS Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. PAN : AABFR4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.03.2…

Shri Pravinbhai Ghusabhai Singala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e particulars of income and concealment the true particulars of income. Therefore, no specific charge was levied while initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levying the penalty. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Nayn C Shah vs ITO [2016] 386 ITR 304 (Guj) it was submitted that while issuing a notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act the AO is required to specify as to what the AO wants on the part of the assessee, as to whether the case is one of furnishing inaccurate particulars or whether it is a case of concealment of income, or both. Hence, view expressed by the CIT(A) to effect that breach in qu…

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1772/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Solidity Developers Private Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-11(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Solidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 PAN – AAOCS0518G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.R Respondent by: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R Date of Hearing: 29.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 O R D E R Per Rav…

Kothari Pharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 5249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…against the disallowances. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of assessing officer on his observation that the assessee has not made any submission. 4 Kothari Pharma 8. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO (386 ITR 304) (Guj) held that when assessee made a claim for expenditure in relation to the labour payment, which he was not entitled to claim in view of Section 40(a)(ia). It would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Therefore, considering the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Nayan C.…

Kambhare Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1449/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.1449/Mum/2014 Assessment Year 2005-06 बनाम/ M/s. Kambhare Chemicals (I) Income tax Officer-4(2)(4) P.Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Mohanlal Jain & Co. Chartered Accountants 10, Chartered House, Ground Floor, Dr. C.H. Street Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 002. स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN :AABCK 0905 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. अपीलाथी की ओर से /Appellant by S/Shri Sanjay Kapadia & Navin Kumar Mishra- (AR.s) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen -DR Date of Hearing 03/07/2018 Date of…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Marksans Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7278/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…eleted the penalty on merits, the legal issue as raised in ground no. 1 is not being adjudicated as the same has become purely academic. 13. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 2.2. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Nayan C. Shah (2016) 386 ITR 304 (Guj.), order dated 29/03/2016 on the issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, considering the decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (Supreme Court) held as under:- “This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshirsagar Construction Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ort of his contentions. “i) Price water Coopers (P) Ltd Vs CIT [25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC)]. ii) CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd [189 Taxman 322(SC)] iii) CIT Vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd [ ITA No. 1332 of 2011(Bom)] iv) Nayan C Shah v. Income Tax Officer [69 Taxmann.com 256(Guj)] v) PCIT Vs. Rana Sugar Ltd [81 Taxmann.com 77(Punjab Haryana)] vi) Narindera Industries v. ACIT [85 Taxmann.com 241(Chandigarh Bench - SMC)]” 9. The Ld. A.R. during the course of assessment proceedings also filed a copy of notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21.02.14 pointing out that AO has not specifi…

Emparco Chemicals Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri, Manish Borad

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Jiwde, Sr.D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(7)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ *,l *,l *,l-,e *,l ,e ,e-lh* ,e lh* lh* अहमदाबाद । lh* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य एवं Ekuh’k cksjM, लेखा सद"य के सम" । Ekuh’k Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM cksjM BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Emparco Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ ACI Premises, Ward – 2(1)(1), Vs. Opp. Vijay Mills, Ahmedabad Naroda Road, Ahmedabad - 380025 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAA…