Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, ... vs Acit, Faridabad on 26 May, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Radha Kishan Goel on 21 April, 2005

Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahendra C. Shah (supra) as well as that of Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Goel (supra) and 6 ITA 6145/Mum/2010 Shri Pannalal K. Banthia having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) was rightly cancelled by the Ld. CIT (A) allowing the benefit of immunity contained in the provisions of Explanation 5 to sec.271(1)(c). In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) cancelling the penalty levied by the AO and dismiss this appeal filed by the revenue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 96 - R Kumar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra C. Shah on 5 February, 2008

Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahendra C. Shah (supra) as well as that of Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Goel (supra) and 6 ITA 6145/Mum/2010 Shri Pannalal K. Banthia having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) was rightly cancelled by the Ld. CIT (A) allowing the benefit of immunity contained in the provisions of Explanation 5 to sec.271(1)(c). In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) cancelling the penalty levied by the AO and dismiss this appeal filed by the revenue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 162 - Z K Saiyed - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Bhandari Silk Store on 23 September, 2010

12. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhandari Silk Store reported in 337 ITR 153, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in said decision has held that where the return of income filed u/s 153A is accepted by the Assessing Officer, there will be no concealment of income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Shourya Towers Pvt Ltd vs Dcit on 12 December, 2012

7. He observed that the assessee has fulfilled the condition no.1 and 3 but has not fulfilled the second condition of the said Explanation, since the assessee has not specified in his statement regarding the manner in which such income was earned, therefore, the assessee has not come out in clean hands by specifying the manner of deriving such income in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) so as to avail of the immunity under the Act. Rejecting the various decisions cited before him and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 255 CTR 225, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c).
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Jayantibhai Dayhabhai Patel,, Surat vs Acit,Circle-8,, Surat on 5 May, 2017

14. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT reported in 280 CTR 216, he submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the said decision held that where the assessee had satisfied all the conditions which are required for claiming immunity from payment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer ought to have granted him immunity available u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 Next