Raghuvir Soni v. ACIT

258 ITR 239High Court2002#17422 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Raghuvir Soni v. ACIT

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…essment proceeding cannot possibility bind the authority who tries the assessee for an offense. Further, a difference was sought to be made between the expression “not 57 proved” and “disproved” in the case of Raghuvir Soni Vs. ACIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 239 (Raj), explanation would cover a case of a not proved situation as well as disproved ones, where there is failure to substantiate an explanation since inference in this case could well rest on the facts, the attempt of the taxpayer to make a question of law out of the same failed. Further, it requires to take into consideration the scope of…

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

…ence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. d) Further, in the judgement in the case of Raghuvir Soni Vs. ACIT 258 ITR 239 (Rai), the Hon' ble High Court has held that the provisions relating to levy of penalty for concealment of income have been materially altered with effect from April 1. 1976. It is now clearly postulated that where any amount is added in computing the income of the assessee and in the penalty proceedings the assessee fails to offer an explanation…

Vaswani Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3005/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 166Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 3005/Mum/18 2005-06 Vaswani Trust, Vaswani Gardens, 25, Sobani Road, Cuffe Parade, 3006/Mum/18 2006-07 MUMBAI [PAN: AAATV6765B] Income Tax Officer- 3007/Mum/18 2005-06 Vaswani Chambers, 12(2)(4), Vaswani Gardens, 25, MUMBAI Sobani Road, Cuffe Parade, 3008/Mum/18 2006-07 MUMBAI [PAN: AAAFV7924L] Vaswani Trust, Vaswani Gardens, 25, 3009/Mum/18 2007-08 Sobani Road, Cuffe Parade, MUMBAI [PAN: AAATV6765B] Appellant By : Shri Rakesh…

Automobiles Products of India Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 7584/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7584/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…on as are required as per mandate of ITA7584/Mum/2013 4 Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to come out of clutches of penalty leviable. The A.O. relied on the following decisions:- 1. K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT, (2001)251 ITR 99 (SC) 2. Raghuvir Soni v. ACIT, (2002) 258 ITR 239 (Rajasthan HC) 3. UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles (2008) 174 Taxman 571(SC) The AO distinguished the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 189 Taxman 322(SC) . Thus, penalty was levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the minimum amount compu…

Rdc Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2918/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…From the penalty order, the 11 relevant operative para 1, at last page, we may note that the AO in the beginning of the order noted the facts of the case, then the proposition of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Raghuvir Soni Vs. ACIT reported at 258 ITR 239 [Rsj] thereafter reproduced the submissions of the assessee dated 28.3.2011. On the 4th page of penalty order, the AO observed that the AO has not been able to show any reasonable cause for its action in claiming deferred revenue expenditure and the assessee has been unable to sustain the explanation offered by him in respect of addition made.…