Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Ganesh Housing Corpn.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Acit., Circle-4,, Ahmedabad on 15 May, 2019

M/S Jammu And Kashmir State Power ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 July, 2019

concealment of particulars of income/furnishing the particular of income", therefore it goes to prove that even the mind of the AO, while recording the satisfaction in Assessment Order, issuing 12 ITA No.339/Asr/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) J &K State Power Dev. Corp. Ltd. Sri vs. ACIT the notice dated 28-03-2014 u/s 274 of the Act and while imposing the penalty as well, was indecisive and unclear under which limb, the penalty proceedings have to be initiated and under which limb the assessee had to reply in order to defend its case and under which limb the penalty warranted and supposed to be levied, therefore we are of the view that under these facts and circumstance, the penalty is not leviable as held by the various Courts including the Apex Court, hence, we have no hesitation to delete the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT (A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Doshi Housing Limited on 10 March, 2022

In the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 & 1 reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 172 (Gujarat) it was held that re-assessment proceedings are not warranted if the assessee did not suppress any material particulars at the time of assessment or the assessing officer had not collected any new materials to show that there was escapement of assessment. In Para Nos.10 and 11 of the decision, it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), ... vs Ganesh Plantations Ltd., Ahmedabad on 13 April, 2021

थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACG7004R (Appellant / Respondent) .. (Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. Nos. 2200/Ahd/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Ganesh Plantation Ltd. बनाम/ The ACIT Ganesh Corporate House, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Room 100 Feet Hebatpur-Thaltej No. 304, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Nr. Sola Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavin, Surat vs Assessee

regarding the nature of services rendered by these commission agents. In the written submission filed before us also, the only contention of the assessee is that TDS was deducted from 5 parties out of 7 parties and in the case of one party, there is no requirement of TDS as the payment made is very small of Rs.1145/- only and in the case of one party of Dubai, TDS was not required to be deducted because payment was outside India. There is no explanation of the assessee regarding nature of services rendered by these parties. Regarding the Tribunal decision cited by the assessee in the written submission i.e. rendered in the case of Detrox Corporation vs. ACIT (supra), we find that in that case also, the A.O. asked the assessee to explain the nature of services rendered by the agents to whom the commission was paid in that case and it was explained before the A.O. in that case that the party in question had procured contract of sewage treatment plant from Hazira LNG Pvt. Ltd., for the assessee of the value of Rs.94,19,090/- for a period of one year for which commission was paid. This shows that in that case, the assessee had explained the nature of services rendered by the party to whom payment of commission was made whereas in the present case, no such explanation has been rendered by the assessee before authorities below or before us as to what was the service rendered by the commission agents in question to whom the disputed amount was paid by the assessee. Hence, the Tribunal decision cited by the assessee is of no help in the present case. In the absence of any explanation regarding any service rendered by the 7 parties to whom this commission amount of Rs.5,61,023/- was paid, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground No.1 is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ganesh Enterprise., Ahmedabad vs The Addl. Cit, Tds, Ahmedabad on 23 June, 2021

9.4 We also note that the judgments relied by the authorities below in reaching to the conclusion that the assessee is subject to the penalty under the provisions of section 271C of the Act have been reversed by the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court of Full Bench in the case of Lakshadweep development Corporation Ltd (supra). The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.,, Pune vs Assessee

19. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative defended the order of the Assessing Officer in support of the case of the Revenue. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee justified the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and submitted that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Dr P. S. Pasricha vide Income Tax Appeal No 1825 of 2009 dated 7.10.2009 and also by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT 81 ITD 545 (Mum).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Shree Cement Limited,Bangur Nagar vs Acit, Central Circle, Ajmer on 24 June, 2025

50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim to be excluded or included under the said provisions, said decision has lost its persuasive value. Further, the said sub-section applies to all the provisions of the Act and not to any particular claim or section. Further, the said decision is contrary to the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka and Madras High court referred to hereinabove on section 115JB(5) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 176 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1