Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v. CIT

259 CTR 386High Court2013#20163 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v. CIT

Suresh Mohan Kanwar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

ITA 70/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Milin Dattani &For Respondent: V. Justin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d on the transaction, assessee is liable to pay L.TCG. Accordingly, he included the above income in return u/s. 153A. lii support of his argument, the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bombay), Santa Mirza 259 CTR 386 (AP-HC) for the proposition that a bonafide mistake made on the wrong advise of Chartered Accountant does not attract penal consequences. Besides the above ITA Nos.64-69/Mum/2016 & 70-75/Mum/2016 arguments, the assessee submitted an affidavit by Shri Uday Soman, C.A., proprietor of Soman Uday & Co., wherein he admitted that a mistake happened in…

Samita Suresh Kanwar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

ITA 69/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Milin Dattani &For Respondent: V. Justin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d on the transaction, assessee is liable to pay L.TCG. Accordingly, he included the above income in return u/s. 153A. lii support of his argument, the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bombay), Santa Mirza 259 CTR 386 (AP-HC) for the proposition that a bonafide mistake made on the wrong advise of Chartered Accountant does not attract penal consequences. Besides the above ITA Nos.64-69/Mum/2016 & 70-75/Mum/2016 arguments, the assessee submitted an affidavit by Shri Uday Soman, C.A., proprietor of Soman Uday & Co., wherein he admitted that a mistake happened in…

Smt. Punita Lal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6121/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Punita Lal, 909B, The Aralias Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-47, 3Rd Floor, Block-B, Civic Dlf, Golf Links, Gurgaon Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan : Abqpl3616A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Rupesh Jain, Advocate & Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 24/09/2015 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) For Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty, Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Impugned Order Dated 24.07.2014 Levying Penalty Of Rs. 18,35,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Impugned Penalty Order Was Passed Without Recording Proper Satisfaction In The Assessment

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

…income by the assessee on detection of bona fide/inadvertent mistake by the assessee, the ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 5 AY: 2011-12 1. CIT versus Manjunatha cotton and ginning factory 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka High Court) 2. CIT versus Sania Mirza 259 CTR 386 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 3. CIT versus Saket Aggarwal 147 ITD 686 (Delhi Tribunal) 7. On the contrary, ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee not only exercised the option of ESOP but also sold the same during the year but omitted to declare the same in the return of income, which amounted to concea…

Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v. CIT (259 CTR 386) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax