Vadilal Ichhachand v. CIT

32 ITR 569High Court1957#17640 most cited
5

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

Judgments citing Vadilal Ichhachand v. CIT

DCIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Channel V Music Networks Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7253/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit (It)-4(2)(2), Room Channel V Music Networks Ltd. No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Partnership C/O Star India India Building, Nariman Private Ltd., Star House, Urmi Point, Mumbai-400021. Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaefc6136H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Porus Kaka, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Porus Kaka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.V. Rajguru, DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that it is the original return which Is relevant for levy of penalty if the explanation of assessee has not been found satisfactory, in view of Bombay High Court decision in the case of Vadilal Icchanand 32 ITR 569? 3. In a nutshell, the facts are that the assessee is a non-resident partnership firm and tax resident in Hong Kong. During the financial year (FY) 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee owned the satellite television channel called Channel V (‘Channel’). The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.…

Ashutosh P. Bhatt, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 1526/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…reasons, we find that the assessee does not deserve to be visited with the liability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.1,17,82,234/-. 17. Before parting, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vadilal Ichhachand, 32 ITR 569 (Bom.) which has been relied by the ld. DR before us for the proposition that penalty in the present case is justified because if the income declared in 20 Shri Ashutosh P. Bhatt ITA Nos.6034/Mum/2014, 1104 & 1526/Mum/2015 the original return of income was accepted, it would have led to concealment of income. We have carefully perused the said j…

DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 1104/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…reasons, we find that the assessee does not deserve to be visited with the liability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.1,17,82,234/-. 17. Before parting, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vadilal Ichhachand, 32 ITR 569 (Bom.) which has been relied by the ld. DR before us for the proposition that penalty in the present case is justified because if the income declared in 20 Shri Ashutosh P. Bhatt ITA Nos.6034/Mum/2014, 1104 & 1526/Mum/2015 the original return of income was accepted, it would have led to concealment of income. We have carefully perused the said j…

DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 6034/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…reasons, we find that the assessee does not deserve to be visited with the liability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.1,17,82,234/-. 17. Before parting, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vadilal Ichhachand, 32 ITR 569 (Bom.) which has been relied by the ld. DR before us for the proposition that penalty in the present case is justified because if the income declared in 20 Shri Ashutosh P. Bhatt ITA Nos.6034/Mum/2014, 1104 & 1526/Mum/2015 the original return of income was accepted, it would have led to concealment of income. We have carefully perused the said j…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…hown as sale price of the shares shall not be treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Then, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 20/12/2007 increasing the business income by Rs. 17,95,551/-. In the case of Vadilal Ichhachand v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 569(Bom); Dayabhai Girdharbhai v. CIT(1957) 32 ITR 677 (Bom), it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the assessee cannot escape liability for penalty by filing revised return after queries from the authority concerned. 6.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UoI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) has held that penalty…