Search: section 68

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 278Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 115J11 Section 271(1)(c)6 Section 143(3)2 Penalty2

HARILAL MULUKCHAND METHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Harilal Mulukchand Mehta Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Flat No.2, Tannar Kutir, Mumbai Vs. Plot No.540, 17Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan Aadpm4219L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: T A Khan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

68 lacs vide his report dated 19th March, 2009, a copy of which is also available on record and subsequently only in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed another return of revised income. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” The Assessing

ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TRENDS HOLDING & CONSULTANCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section was for providing remedy for loss, of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under s. 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT & Anr. (cited