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

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2826/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…nce on the following case law to substantiate its contention that mere disallowance of claim of the assessee would not lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (a) Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158)(SC) (b) Narayan C. Shah Vs. ITO (386 ITR 304)(Gujarat) (c) Narangs International Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (137 ITD 53)(Del) (d) CIT Vs. S.M. Construction (233 Taxman 263) (Bom) 4. Learned AR submitted that the assessee has also furnished explanation before the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has failed to consider those explanations and the learned CIT(A) has also failed to fin…

Om Siddivinayak Creations P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 986/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 986/Mum/2015

For Appellant: Dr. Anupama Singla, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ITA No.986/M/2015 Om Siddivinayak Creations Private Limited Assessment Year 2008-09 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी.ट". गरा"सया,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 986/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Om Siddivinayak Creations Income Tax Officer 8(2)(4) Mumbai Private Limited (CIN : U92100MH2005PTC151340) बनाम/ 6th Floor,Gazebo House Vs. 52 Gulmohar Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/G…

Dhananjay M Pandey, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1042/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dhananjay M. Pandey, Ito 25(3)(2), 105 Anant Apartment, R.No.642, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Thakur Village Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kandivali(E) M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Ahjpp9612M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshan Gandhi (Ar) Shri Rakesh Ranjan (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dhananjay M. Pandey, ITO 25(3)(2), 105 Anant Apartment, R.No.642, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Thakur Village Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kandivali(E) M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AHJPP9612M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Darshan Gandhi (AR) Shri Rakesh Ranjan (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by DR) 21/06/201…