Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah v. ACIT

60 TTJ 171Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#18119 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah v. ACIT

Maruti Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co in ITA No.240/2009 order dated 5.10.2010. ii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Nayan Builders and Developers, 368 ITR 722 (Bom) iii) Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs ACIT, 60 TTJ 171 (Ahd) Asse ssment Year : 20 04- 05 iv) Rupam Mercantile Ltd vs DCIT, 91 ITD 237 (Third Member)(Ahd) 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Assessing Offi…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 2/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Pardia, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 56

…sessee was admitted by the jurisdictional High Court vide Tax Case Appeal No. 92/2013 and issue debatable and relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Smt. Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT 60 TTJ 171 (Ahmedabad) Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Mumbai) and further relied on the co- ordinate bench decision in the case of assessee's husband Shri Pandiarajan ITA No. 54/Mds/2015 dated 12.06.2015 where the penalty issue was disputed and the Tribunal considered the facts and the judicial decisions and the issue is debatable and is n…

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7034/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…l action. It is submitted that these types of notices are severely criticized by the various high courts and apex court in the following judgments and ultimately penalty has been quashed. Reference can be made to the following decisions. a. Ramila Ben Vs ACIT 60 TTJ 171(Ahmadabad) b. CIT Vs Mannu Engg. 122 ITR 306(Guj) c. Dillip N Sherrof reported in 291 ITR 519(SC)- Wherein these kind of notices are severely criticized by the Apex Court. d. Smt Rita Saudhrey reported in 146 taxation 59(Del) e. Manjunath Cotton Mills reported in 359 ITR 0565(Kar).-Recent Decision. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that in the…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rolls Royce Singapore Pte Ltd., New Delhi

In the result all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ers & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 2379/Mum/2009, Order dated 18-3-2011, ITAT- Mumbai]; (iv). Yugal Kishore Jajoo v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 272/lnd./2011, Order dated 12 2-2013, ITAT Indore]; (v). Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 60 TTJ 171 (Ahd). (vi). Advaita Estate Development (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2013] 40 taxmann.com 142 (Mumbai - Trib.) 6.2 It was also submitted that the assessee had maintained all the details of receipts and the income in respect of fee from technical services was taxable on gross basis and such receipts that accrued to the assessee in one year were offered to tax…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5556/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…rson properly instructed in law and was not completely debarred in law. Relying on the decisions in the I.T.A. No. 5556/Del/2011 Assessment Year 2005-06 cases of Rupam Mercantile Ltd. vs. DCIT, 91 ITD 237(Ahd.) (TM) and Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT, 60 TTJ 171(Ahd.), the Tribunal held that no penalty was exigible u/s. 271(1) (c), once the High Court had held that the issue of addition/disallowance represented a substantial question of law. On an appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the imposition of the penalty was not justified. The court noted that the Tribunal, as a proof…