New Sorathia Engg. Co. v. CIT

282 ITR 614High Court#17585 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing New Sorathia Engg. Co. v. CIT

M/S ADITYA CHEMICALS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ons: New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT in 282 ITR 642 (Guj) (CLC Page no. 112-114) CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works in 122 ITR 306 (Guj) (CLC Page no. 115-119) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji in 85 ITR 77 (Gujarat) Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Income Tax vs. T. Girija Ammal in 282 ITR 614 (Chennai) Navinbhai M. Patel vs. ITO in 27 1TD 411(Ahmedabad) IV) Our Submission with respect to M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT in Income Tax Reference No.21 of 2008: The above said judgment is not applicable on the facts of our case in view of following reasons: a) In this judgment, there is no reference to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme…

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat when the AO is not sure whether penalty is for concealment of income of for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, then no penalty can be levied. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 282 ITR 614 (Guj.) and submitted that AO was not certain as to what was the finding on the stand of which he imposed the penalty. He further submitted that in CIT, Gujarat-III vs. Manu Engineering Works, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the AO must give a positive finding as to whether there is concealment of income by the assessee or…

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat when the AO is not sure whether penalty is for concealment of income of for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, then no penalty can be levied. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 282 ITR 614 (Guj.) and submitted that AO was not certain as to what was the finding on the stand of which he imposed the penalty. He further submitted that in CIT, Gujarat-III vs. Manu Engineering Works, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the AO must give a positive finding as to whether there is concealment of income by the assessee or…

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat when the AO is not sure whether penalty is for concealment of income of for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, then no penalty can be levied. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 282 ITR 614 (Guj.) and submitted that AO was not certain as to what was the finding on the stand of which he imposed the penalty. He further submitted that in CIT, Gujarat-III vs. Manu Engineering Works, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the AO must give a positive finding as to whether there is concealment of income by the assessee or…

HARIPAL SINGH,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we allow ground no

ITA 6076/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. S. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. V.K. Garg, Adv. & Sh. Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Robin Rawal, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 56Section 57

…xed, he submitted that it can be taxed only on the compensation being finally determined in the Court of law. He relied on the following case laws. 3 AY 2009-10 Sh. Haripal Singh (i) CIT vs. Hardwari Lal 312 ITR 151 (P & H) (ii) CIT vs. Smt. T. Girija Ammal 282 ITR 614((Mad) (iii) CIT vs. Padam Parkash (HUF) 104 ITD 1 (Del) (SB) (iv) CIT vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. 161 ITR 524 (SC) 8. He also relied on the explanatory notes introducing to the provisions of the Finance No. 2 Act, 2009 and Circular No. 5/2010/[F.No. 142/13/2010-SO(TPL)] dated 3.6.2010 for the proposition that, interest in…

New Sorathia Engg. Co. v. CIT (282 ITR 614) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax