Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. v. CIT

172 ITR 575Reported decision#23092 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. v. CIT

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hence under a misconception of law, he failed to disclo…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hence under a misconception of law, he failed to disclo…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hence under a misconception of law, he failed to disclo…

Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. v. CIT (172 ITR 575) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax