How many judgments cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT (282 ITR 642), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 10(2A).

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

282 ITR 642High Court2006#1253 most cited

What is New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and an ambiguous or unspecified charge renders the penalty invalid.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · specific charge penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty invalidity · non-application of mind · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 10(2A)Section 115JB Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

deletion of penalty section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 non-application of mind section 271(1)levy of penalty change of opinion

Judgments citing New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

Vijay Kedia (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…Vs. M/s SSA's EMERALD MEADOWS reported in 2015 (11) TMI 1620. He also relied on the decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [20131 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) and Jyoti Ltd. [20131 taxmann.com 65 (High Court-Guj), New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-High Court). 4. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases: i. Shri Samson Perinchery. ITA 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order date — 5.01.2017) (Bombay High Court) ii SSA's Emerald Meadows [20161 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High…

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6039/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT C/o. RRA Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi AADCP4270D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25/07/2017 passe…

Shri Chandresh Roshnalal Jain, Godhra vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1272/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Chandresh Roshanlal Jain, A.C.I.T., B-1, Centre Point, Vs. Panchmahal Circle, Nr. S.T. Stand, Godhra. Godhra.

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…nt liable to penalty for concealment of income while in Para 10 on page 11 there is no charge specified by AO while drawing the conclusion. Hon'ble courts have held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning specific charge. 1. New Sorathia Engineering 282 ITR 642 (Guj) 2. Manu Engineering 122 ITR 306 (Guj) 3. Snita Transport Pvt Ltd 42 taxmann.com 54 (Guj) Followed in plethora of cases by Hon'ble ITAT (Ahd) 1. Hatish Prabhudas Chaudhary ITA # 3557/A/2016 [P/B pg 29 - 36] 2. Ushaben Atulbhai Shah ITA # 197/A/2017 [P/B pag 37 - 45] II. Appellant makes following submissions on merits: Appellant is an invest…

M/S. Yaelstar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…s the AO was not certain whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention on this issue, the learned counsel for the assessee relied in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj)/ 155 Taxman 513 (Gujrat) and CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Further, the facts of Vijay Proteins 55 TTJ 76 (Ahd-Trib) were entirely different hence, not applicable, therefore, confirmation of penalty by the CIT (A) is not justified. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since the assessee has filed bills of…

Trilokchand Tejandas Kalani, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1611/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1611/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sh. Mohinder Trilokchand Kalani, Vs. Ito, Central-3, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Trilokchand Nashik Kalani 3201, Verona, Cliff Avenue Road, Hiranandani Estate, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan : Ajdpk9428N Appellant Respondent

Section 132(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…if it was a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Such an issue has come up for consideration before various courts. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in New Sorathia Engineering Company Vs. 4 A.Y. 2009-10 CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) has held that in the absence of a specific finding in the penalty order as to whether there was a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Recently, the Third Member Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. and Another Vs. ACIT and Ano…

ITO11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. S.K. Office Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6250/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6250/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-11(2)(1) M/S. S.K. Office Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Flat No. 19, 3Rd Floor Room No.425, Aaykar Bhavan M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Lalita Society, Gokhale Road Vs. Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 049. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-1006-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar- Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala-Ld. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ : 08/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar- Ld.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice." Similarly, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT (282 ITR 642) and Jurisdictional Mum-ITAT in the case of M/s. Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.5454/ Mum/ 2011) decided that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for dual charge and Ld. AO could levy the penalty only under one specific charge either for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". This view…

Shri Prem Kumar Sanghi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…ecision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 534/2008 and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Jyoti Ltd. (2013) taxmann.com 65 and New Sorathia Engg. Co. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj). 10. As per the ld. AR, recently again the Karnataka High Court in case of Muninga Reddy Vs. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 398 and the Telengana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in PCIT Vs. Baisetty Revethi (2017) 398 ITR 88 held the same view. In the above said judgments the Hon’ble courts decided the law position on issue that the concealment of income…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…specific, i.e., after hearing the assessee in the matter, concluding that the penalty is, in the facts of the case, imposable. What value, then, the impugned non-strike off ? This would also meet the assessee’s reliance on New Sorathia Engg. Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj), passed following the decision in Manu Engineering Works (supra). In fact, the two limbs, which signify omission and commission respectively, may, in the facts of a case, or considering the explanation furnished, be very thin or even overlap, as held in A.M. Shah v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 415 (Guj), so that nothing in fact turns thereon, and it…

Chitralekha, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6849/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafc-1152-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…65 (SLP dismissed on factory court 05/08/2016) 3. SSA’s Emerald Meadows Hon’ble Karnataka High ITA No. 380 of 2015 court 4. Global Proserv Ltd. Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal ITA No. 7332/Mum/2014 dated 14/03/2017 5. New Sorathia Engg. Co. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court 282 ITR 642 4 Chitralekha Assessment Year :2010-11 Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] submitted that no prejudice was caused to the assessee during penalty proceedings and the assessee was well aware of the charges for which the penalty was being initiated and therefore, there was no substance in the submissions. Reliance has been placed on th…

Siddhraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…e AO and the CIT(A), the order of the penalty passed by the AO is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. For such a view, we usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(AIL). Therefore, where concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(l)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." The facts…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ing imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-High Court). The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases: a. Shri Samson Perinchery. ITA 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order date – 5.01.2017) (Bombay High Court) b. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Satpal Saini, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 3(3), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3743/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. DR

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

…come or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are two mutually exclusive situations. The position of law in this is well settled and reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT in 282 ITR 642, CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works in 122 ITR 306 and CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji in 85 ITR 77. 14. This view has been again reiterated also by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra). Thus viewed from any angle we find that levy of penalty in this case is not justified and the impugned penalty order is illega…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane PAN/GIR No.ADGPB7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri E Sridhar Date of Hearing 18/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 3, Thane dated 17/02/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of imposition of p…

Shri Kaushikaben A. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3331/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kaushikaben A Patel ......…………......Appellant 8, Lavkush Society, Nr. Vyas Wadi, Nava Wadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013 [Pan : Ainpp 3805 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent Ward 2 (2)(2), Ahmedabad

Section 271(1)(c)

…k down on this ground alone. For such a view, we usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New SMC-ITA No. 3331/Ahd/2015 Kaushikaben A Patel Vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, wher e concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Conseq…

Sh. Swami Sharan Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4549/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 4Section 68

…C) is unspecific and hence the L'd Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that in these circumstances penalty was unexigible and further L'd CIT(A) has also not at all considered the law propounded by New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat) which was cited before him. 8. That the L'd Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the grounds for initiation of penalty U/S 271(1)( C) were never given to the assessee and a blind reliance was placed on the assessment only for levying penalty as in the impugned proceedings. 9. That the order of the L'd Comm…

Sh. Vikas, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Vikas, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), Village Ghat, P.O. Pachli Khurd, New Delhi. Meerut (U.P.)

Section 1Section 1BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…n to the impugned order, it was his submission that the specific objection was raised before the CIT (A) and reliance was placed upon the position of law as addressed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of New Soraphahia Engineering Company vs. CIT – (2006) 282 ITR 642; N.M. Subramanium – 97 ITR 228; D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT – 86 ITR 553 (SC); Ranjan & Company – 291 ITR 340 (Delhi); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. – (1998) 246 ITR 568; Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CIT-II vs. Praveen B. Gada (HUF) – 2012) 211 Taxman 166 (M.P.) dated 17.02.2011; and Hon’ble Karnataka Hig…

The ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Rameshwar Ramnivas Maniyar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3206/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R

…AO and the CIT(A), the order of the penalty passed by the AO is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. For such a view, we usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, where concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Conseq…

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No. 398/JP/2015 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 398,399, 400 & 401/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal The DCIT Vs. 27, Ravidatt, Arya Nagar, Central Circle Beawar Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPB 6056D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent f…

Vaishali Anil Jain, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 849/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vaishali Anil Jain, 11, Sneh, Murkute Colony, New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422 002 अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaopj7081N …. Vs. Income Tax Officer, …. ""यथ" / Respondent Central –I, Nahsik Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, satisfaction of the AO while initiating and levying the penalty, decisions relied on by the assessee. Eventually relying on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sorathia Engineering 282 ITR 642, the CIT(A) enhanced the penalty levied by the AO by observing as under : “4.7 . . . . . . . .Income disclosed is based on entries in the books of accounts or transactions undertaken by the appellant during the previous year hence in view of provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A, the income of Rs.4,34,768/- would be treated as…