Revenue. I. CIT v. Satish Medical Agencies (292 ITR 163)

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

…ef that interest was not taxable. The findings of all the authorities was that the explanation was reasonable and no finding that the explanation was false and it was held that there was no question of levy of penalty. 12. In Jyoti Laxman Konkar v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), there were discrepancies in stock noticed during survey and the assessee meanwhile filed a revised return admitting the value of such discrepancy, it was held that no concealment of income in the original return was established, so that no penalty was exigible. 13. In CIT v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Guj.), it was held…

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…ef that interest was not taxable. The findings of all the authorities was that the explanation was reasonable and no finding that the explanation was false and it was held that there was no question of levy of penalty. 12. In Jyoti Laxman Konkar v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), there were discrepancies in stock noticed during survey and the assessee meanwhile filed a revised return admitting the value of such discrepancy, it was held that no concealment of income in the original return was established, so that no penalty was exigible. 13. In CIT v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Guj.), it was held…

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…ef that interest was not taxable. The findings of all the authorities was that the explanation was reasonable and no finding that the explanation was false and it was held that there was no question of levy of penalty. 12. In Jyoti Laxman Konkar v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), there were discrepancies in stock noticed during survey and the assessee meanwhile filed a revised return admitting the value of such discrepancy, it was held that no concealment of income in the original return was established, so that no penalty was exigible. 13. In CIT v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Guj.), it was held…

PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5916/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…at the which revealed that the deduction claimed in the original return filed was claimed in the original return filed was bogus.On identical facts, in On identical facts, in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs CIT(2007) 209 CTR 5(Bom)/ 292 ITR 163, 09 CTR 5(Bom)/ 292 ITR 163, the hon’ble jurisdictional the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed the initial…

PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

ITA 490/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

…tt Yr.: 2015-16 we hold that, the Ld. AO was justified in levying the minimum penalty, and we see that, our view has been rightly fortified by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in the case of “Jyoti Laxman Konkar Vs CIT” reported in 292 ITR 163. 12. Nota bene, in the similar facts and circumstance, where the income of the appellant is assessed in variation to income returned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “MAK Data Pvt Ltd Vs CIT” reported in 358 ITR 593 observed that, the explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment when income is finally assessed in var…

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

…n the case of appellant there is no such retraction. On the contrary, the appellant admitted that Rs.88 lac was omitted to be included in the return though disclosed during survey. 11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar Vs. CIT7 292 ITR 163 (Born) held as under: The assessee had filed a return for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring an income of Rs. 7,40,510. Not satisfied therewith, the Assessing Officer carried out a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and during the survey found that there was a discrepancy in stock to the tune of Rs. 18,281706 which was b…