Similarly, in CIT v. Geo Sea Foods

244 ITR 44High Court#23920 most cited

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

Judgments citing Similarly, in CIT v. Geo Sea Foods

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…(No. 2) 248 ITR 237 (2/8/2000) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in a case where the difference between the returned income and the assessed income arises on account of a difference in opinion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Geo Sea Foods : 1999 : 244 ITR 44 the Hon’ble Kerala High Court referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as follows: “Calcutta High Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. vs. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 592, wherein it was held that there could be no concealment in a case where on admitted facts the assessee disputed the liability to ta…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Brig. Ashish Dube, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…led any inaccurate particulars before the AO which would warrant penalty against the assessee. The assessee cited the cases of K.C. Builders vs. CIT – (2004) 135 taxman 461 (SC), CIT vs. Rahuljee & Co. (2001) 115 taxman – 0509 (Del.), CIT vs. Geo Sea Foods 244 ITR 44 (Ker.) to state that mere omission in the return of an item of receipt does neither amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it could be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the par…

ADIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Known As Linklater & Paines), Mumbai

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…pported by the certificate issued by the UK Tax authorities. The FAA referred to the cases of GD Naidu (165ITR 63),Cement Marketing Co. India Ltd. (124ITR 15); Dhoolie Tea Co. 2 ITA7081 & ors/M/05,AY.96-97-Linklaters(LLP) Ltd. (231ITR 65) and Geo Sea Foods (244 ITR 44) and held that sustaining of an addition could not be a ground for levy of penalty, that the assessee had placed all material before the AO, that the claim of the assessee was rejected by him only on legal interpretation.Finally, allowing the appeal of the assessee ,the FAA deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.During t…