Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v. CIT

257 ITR 355High Court2002#11376 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44AB

Judgments citing Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v. CIT

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…are all not required when there is an admission. The assessee has mainly relied upon the case laws of CIT Vs S. Shankaran (2000) 241 ITR 825, Mohammad Azim Ullah Vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 680,CIT Vs Abdul Majeed(1998)232 ITR 50, Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, 257 ITR 355 and few more case laws as discussed above in assessee's submission. But none of the case law is useful for the assessee as the facts of the case are different and distinguished. 3 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 4.2 It is not as though in the instant case, subsequent return was filed voluntarily, but only after enquiry conducted by ITO (Inv) Un…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Raj Kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1859/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…evied on account of disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted finding it to be a notional disallowance and following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarabhai Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 355. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter took us through the order passed by the ITAT in quantum proceedings for the impugned year and drawing out attention to para 43 of the order pointed out that the ITAT had upheld the claim of the assessee to deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. Our attention was thereafter drawn to para 55 of the order hold…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ause the assessee has claimed expenditure, 9 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., which claim was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(l)(c). 9.18 The Hon'ble Gujarat High court, in the case of Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 257 ITR 355 has held that where the assessee is under a bonafide belief that no income has actually accrued, no penalty is leviable. The relevant extract of the order is as under:- "19.2 The satisfaction in the course of assessment proceedings that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income may gi…

The ADIT., (Intnl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad vs. Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2739/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2001-2002

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 42

…ain provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because mere rejection of assessee's claim would not be sufficient to hold the assesses to be guilty of concealment. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Chemical (P) Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 355 (Guj.) held as under:-.--. "The deeming fiction that the added/ disallowed amounts represent the income in respect of v/hich particulars have been concealed contained in Explanation 1 will not apply if the explanation that was given by the assessee in the quantum proceedings which he could not substantiate in those proceedings was (i) bona fide a…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 999/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…ion Asst.Years – 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. 230 CTR 320. Further, it has also relied upon the judgrnent of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v/s. CIT 257 ITR 355 (Guj.). 8. I have gone through the various case law relied upon by the appellant as well as submissions made by the appellant on the merits of the case. It cannot be denied that assessment proceedings and penal proceedings are separate proceedings. It is apparent that there is difference of opinion regarding applicability of proviso to section 2…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…ion Asst.Years – 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. 230 CTR 320. Further, it has also relied upon the judgrnent of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v/s. CIT 257 ITR 355 (Guj.). 8. I have gone through the various case law relied upon by the appellant as well as submissions made by the appellant on the merits of the case. It cannot be denied that assessment proceedings and penal proceedings are separate proceedings. It is apparent that there is difference of opinion regarding applicability of proviso to section 2…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…ion Asst.Years – 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. 230 CTR 320. Further, it has also relied upon the judgrnent of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v/s. CIT 257 ITR 355 (Guj.). 8. I have gone through the various case law relied upon by the appellant as well as submissions made by the appellant on the merits of the case. It cannot be denied that assessment proceedings and penal proceedings are separate proceedings. It is apparent that there is difference of opinion regarding applicability of proviso to section 2…

Daniel Measurement Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the penalty appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2331/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2716/Ahd/2011 & 2331/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R

…eliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) where the meaning of ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ has been explained. The learned AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in case of Sarabhai Chemical (P) Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 355 (Guj.) and submitted that the action of the assessee is in the realm of bonafide and therefore, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. 16. The learned DR relied upon the respective orders of the AO and CIT(A) concerning penalty imposed. 17. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The penalty has been imposed b…

Chandra Ramesh, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 273/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…rk Consultants (India) Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 564/Mds/2011 for assessment year 2005-06 dated 31.01.2013, the AR submitted that this tribunal deleted penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the deemed dividend relying on the Gujarat High Court decisions in 221 ITR 66, 257 ITR 355 (Guj) and hence, the AR submitted that neither there is concealment nor the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and hence, the penalty levied may be deleted. Per contra, the DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Alkes K Patel 325 ITR 118 (Bom) and CI…

Sarabhal Chemicals P.Ltd. v. CIT (257 ITR 355) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax