Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT

330 ITR 93High Court2011#5120 most cited

What is Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is correctly levied when an assessee admits undisclosed income during assessment proceedings, particularly when such income is discovered through search or survey operations, even if the assessee later claims to have sought a 'quietus'.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT · L.M.L. Precision Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT · 330 ITR 93 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · undisclosed income · search operation · survey operation · admission of income

Judgments citing Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

…the penalty u/s 271(1}(c) of the Act was correctly levied by the authorities below. In this regard, we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of L.M.L. Precision Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93. The relevant extract of the order is already been reproduced hereinabove. Thus, we do " not find any reason to disturb the finding of id. CITIA). Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed." It is clear that the appellant in the instant case has only taken the plea oi putting quietus on the issues which was also not the case as the…

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 540/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 538/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 537/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

SABITHA REPALLE,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 536/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

SABITHA REPALLE,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 535/HYD/2021[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

SABITHA REPALLE ,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 534/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL ,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKARABAD

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

ITA 532/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 539/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). The learned CIT (A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of L.M.P. Precision Engineering Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93 and also the decision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kashish Enterprises in ITA No.256/Rajkot/2014 dt.15.10.2018. 10. The learned counsel Shri A.V.Raghu Ram appearing for the assessees submits that assessees are regular income tax assessees. Pursuant to survey operation on 27.09.2016, an affidavit was filed on 23.01.2017 on behalf…

M/S. KASHISH ENTERPRISE,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kashish Enterprise Vs. Ito, Poonam Apartment, New Ward – 2, Station Road, Bhuj-Kutch Bhuj. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1.0 The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2.0 The Ld Cit(A)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A)] Erred In Facts As Also In Retaining Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Income Of Rs.55,53,360/-. The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Kindly Be Deleted. 3.0 The Honor’S Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or More Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the penalty u/s 127(1)(c) of the Act was correctly levied by the authorities below. In this regard, we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of L.M.L. Precision Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 330 ITR 93. The relevant extract of the order is already been reproduced hereinabove. Thus, we do not find any reason to 7 Kashish Enterprises vs. ITO. AY : 2009-10 disturb the finding of ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th Octob…

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

ITA 5608/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…in the facts of the case, the assessee had concealed the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, the imposition of penalty was valid." 12. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of LMP Precisuion Engg. Co, Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (Assessment), 330 ITR 93 (Guj.) confirmed the levy of penalty because revised return was filed after survey operation which showed concealment of income and it was held as under: "Held, that it was only after the statement of the chairman and managing director was recorded by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Mumbai, that the first disclosure dated Octob…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 287/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 286/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 285/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 284/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 283/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 282/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 281/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

AJAY KUMAR BAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 302 (…

KUMAR V. VASANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…any vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) 11 Mr. Kumar V. Vasani XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 370 (All.) XII. Bajrang Glass Emporium vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 376 (All.) XIII. Indus Engineering Company vs A…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2