Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Manibhai And Bros. on 4 December, 2006

Dcit Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai on 18 October, 2019

Also the Ld. counsel file another P/B containing case laws in support of his contention that fresh claim can be made in the return filed u/s 153A [DCIT v. Eversmile Construction Company (P) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai-Trib)] ; that excess or wrong claim of depreciation by itself does not attract penalty [CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC), CIT v. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 486 (Delhi HC), CIT v. Manibhai & Bros [2007] 294 ITR 501 (Gujarat HC), ITO v. Vaidangi Techno Management Consultants (P) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 832 (Jaipur- Trib) (UO) and DCIT v. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 196 (Chennai-Trib)] ; that disallowance of expenditure/deduction cannot automatically lead to penalty [CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC)] ; that mere confirmation of disallowance in quantum appeal cannot invite penalty [ACIT v. VIP Industries Ltd. [2009] 30 SOT 254 (Mumbai)] ; that simply because the assessee did not challenge the addition/disallowance in quantum appeal cannot lead to penalty [CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC), Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No. 4862/Del/2013 (Delhi-Trib)];
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raichand B Kunkulol, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 October, 2013

There is no finding to the effect that the claims made by the appellant which subsequently was voluntarily agreed for addition was malafide either at the assessment stage or during penalty proceedings by the A.O. Mere withdrawal of bonafide claim of depreciation withdrawn on being pointed out does not justify penalty as held in CIT Vs. Manibhai and Bros (2007) 294 ITR 501 (Guj). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.I.T., Udaipur vs M/S Chittorgarh Kendriya Sah. Bank Ltd on 17 October, 2013

Similarly, the Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Manibhai & Bros. (supra) it has been held that if an assessee wrongly claims some deduction under a bona fide mistake, he cannot be considered liable for penalty. In the present case, the appellant has claimed deduction under section 80P which was surrendered by filing the revised return as soon as the A.O. confronted to the amendment made in section 80P (4) according to which such deduction is not allowable in the case of the appellant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pathankot Primary Cooperative ... vs Department Of Income Tax

In the case of CIT Vs. Manibhai & Bros. (2007) 294 ITR 501 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal having found that the assessee had no intention to conceal facts when it made incorrect claim of depreciation which was withdrawn by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable for making the wrong claim.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1