Shri Ishar Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. ACIT

68 ITD 117Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#25461 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Shri Ishar Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. ACIT

Hardeep Singh Randhawa, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)

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

…ads to the inference of concealment. Taking into account the entirely of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) was made out.” ITAT, Mumbai Bench has held in the case of Shri Ishar Alloy and Steel Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (1999) 68 ITD 117, 124 (Mum.).:-(See. P. B. of judgements Pg. No. 23-29) “The AO could not establish that the evidence adduced by the assessee was false or the claim of the assessee was not bona fide. While this lack of sufficient evidence may lead to disallowance of assessee’s claim, in the absence of a positive finding regarding the falsity or impossibility of a…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Kalpavruksha Developers, Mumbai

ITA 5397/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…te particulars. ii) CIT vs. Shiv Lal Desai and Sons 114 ITR 377 (Bom) - It was held that merely because the disallowance was made in the assessment proceedings, it would not necessarily lead to imposition of penalty. iii) Shri Ishar Alloys & Steel Ltd vs ACIT 68 ITD 117 (Mum) – It was held that action under section 2711)(c) was not valid as the assessee had made a bonafide but unsuccessful claim for depreciation.” 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused materials available on record. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Ra…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Girdhardas K Damani L/R Anand G Damani, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1828/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…e particulars. ii) CIT Vs. Shiv Lal Desai and Sons 114 ITR377 (Bom) - it was held that merely because the disallowance was made in the assessment proceedings, it would not necessarily lead to imposition of penalty. iii) Shri Ishar Alloys & Steel Ltd. vs. ACIT 68 ITD 117 (Mum)- it was held that action under section 271(1)(c) was not valid as the assessee had made a bonafide but unsuccessful claim for depreciation.” 4. The ld. DR submitted before us that the assessee has wrongly claimed the interest paid on the money borrowed by him from its income from other sources and 4 I.T.O. Vs Girdhardas K. Damani therefore…