Udayan Mukherjee v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

291 ITR 318High Court2007#20427 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Udayan Mukherjee v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

SWADESH TEXTILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…3] 35 taxmann.com 95 (Bom.), CIT v. Sania Mirza [2013] 40 taxmann.com 17 (AP), CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), Lequidz India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 558/Hyd/2011], CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del.), Udayan Mukharjee v. CIT 291 ITR 318 (Cal.), CIT v. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. (Madras High Court), Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1985 of 2006. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that the computation of book profit was not filed along with the return of income and the assessee filed it during the course of assessment proceedings when asked to do…

VIDHI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 5794/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz.

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. M. Doss, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…all services provided by him during year. Assessee has filed all details of property tax in question before Assessing Officer. It was a purely bonafide human error. 2.4 We find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Udayan Mukherjee vs. CIT reported at 291 ITR 318 (Cal), wherein assessee made mistake in calculation of indexation. Calculation was made on the basis of particulars furnished. On the basis of particulars, Assessing Officer has arrived at correct indexation. In case before us, all particulars have been ITA No.5794/Mum/13 A.Y. 09-10 [Vidhi Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) Page 6 filed before Assessin…

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…shing of inaccurate particulars, an erroneous belief as to the entitlement for the benefit under section 54F of the Act does not form a base to impose penalty. He placed reliance on a decision reported in Udayan Mukherjee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (2007) 291 ITR 318(Cal), wherein it was held as under: 3 Smt. Romi Lahiri, AY 2006-07 “7. If we go by section 271(1)(c), then it appears that the said section will apply in a case where the assessee has concealed his income or has furnished wrong particulars. In this case, it appears that all the particulars were furnished and there is no finding that the particul…

VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5647/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 111ASection 271(1)(c)

…tax applicable in the return of income cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income particularly when assessee has furnished all the relevant materials in the return filed. The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Udayan Mukherjee(supra)(291 ITR 318) held that if a mistake is committed in working out indexation, the mistaken indexation would not amount to furnishing of wrong particulars within the purview of section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same can be corrected by the AO on the basis of particulars furnished. In the case before us also, AO could apply the chargeable rate of tax as applic…

Udayan Mukherjee v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (291 ITR 318) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax