1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT v. Munni

140 ITR 407High Court1983#12188 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing 1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT v. Munni

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1284/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 221

…rious Hon'ble Court in the country:  CIT Vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 471 [Ker];  CIT Vs. Jaipur Electro [P] Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 476 [Raj];  CIT Vs. Bhikaji Ramachandra [1990] 183 ITR 478 [Born];  CIT Vs. Raunaq Et Co., [P] Ltd., [1983] 140 ITR 407 [Del]; Page 6 of 10 ITA Nos. 1283 & 1284/Bang/2017  CIT Vs. Mysore Fertilisers Co., [1984] 145 ITR 91 [Mad];  Addl. CIT Vs. Free Wheels India Ltd., [1982] 137 ITR 378 [Del]; [viii] The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of ACTT [TM] Vs. M/s. Image Health Care Limit…

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1283/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 221

…rious Hon'ble Court in the country:  CIT Vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 471 [Ker];  CIT Vs. Jaipur Electro [P] Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 476 [Raj];  CIT Vs. Bhikaji Ramachandra [1990] 183 ITR 478 [Born];  CIT Vs. Raunaq Et Co., [P] Ltd., [1983] 140 ITR 407 [Del]; Page 6 of 10 ITA Nos. 1283 & 1284/Bang/2017  CIT Vs. Mysore Fertilisers Co., [1984] 145 ITR 91 [Mad];  Addl. CIT Vs. Free Wheels India Ltd., [1982] 137 ITR 378 [Del]; [viii] The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of ACTT [TM] Vs. M/s. Image Health Care Limit…

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6898/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

…s Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT vs. Dadu Vala & Co. (1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT. VS Munni lal & Co. (2006) 157 taxman 466 (Raj) CIT vs. Raunaq & Co Pr. LTd (1983) 140 ITR 407, 411 (Del) CIT V. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.( 1990) 183 ITR 471 474 (ker) CIT Vs. Dadu Wala & Co. (1988) 179 ITr 491 494 (Raj) Mahadev Ram s. RTA (1973) Tax LR 2227 (Ori) Brajalal Bank v. State of Tripura (1990) 79 STC 217, 226 (Gauh) 9.6 The submissions of the Id. Counsel have been carefully considered. The Ld.AO without giving any reason or com…

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6897/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

…s Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT vs. Dadu Vala & Co. (1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT. VS Munni lal & Co. (2006) 157 taxman 466 (Raj) CIT vs. Raunaq & Co Pr. LTd (1983) 140 ITR 407, 411 (Del) CIT V. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.( 1990) 183 ITR 471 474 (ker) CIT Vs. Dadu Wala & Co. (1988) 179 ITr 491 494 (Raj) Mahadev Ram s. RTA (1973) Tax LR 2227 (Ori) Brajalal Bank v. State of Tripura (1990) 79 STC 217, 226 (Gauh) 9.6 The submissions of the Id. Counsel have been carefully considered. The Ld.AO without giving any reason or com…

SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3510/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…or any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like t place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of: C.I.T. v. Mitsui And Co. Ltd. And Another 272 ITR 545 (Del.) C.I.T. v. Raunaq & Co. (P.) Ltd. 140 ITR 407 pp 411 (Del.) 8. The L’d Counsel of the appellant stressed on the fact that in response to summon dated 12.10.2007 substantial information was furnished by the appellant but the entire information could not be furnished due to paucity o time. It was further stressed that post issue of summon dated 12.10.200' further more summons were issued by th…

SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3511/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…or any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like t place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of: C.I.T. v. Mitsui And Co. Ltd. And Another 272 ITR 545 (Del.) C.I.T. v. Raunaq & Co. (P.) Ltd. 140 ITR 407 pp 411 (Del.) 8. The L’d Counsel of the appellant stressed on the fact that in response to summon dated 12.10.2007 substantial information was furnished by the appellant but the entire information could not be furnished due to paucity o time. It was further stressed that post issue of summon dated 12.10.200' further more summons were issued by th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4126/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sugandha Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Adv
Section 13(4)Section 221Section 221(1)

…reason for not levying penalty u/s 221(1). The lists of such judgments are as under :- 1. Addnl. CIT vs. Free Wheels India Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 378 (Del) 2. ACIT vs. Rakesh Kumar Garg (2015) 64 Taxman.com 367 (Del Trib.) 3. CIT vs. Raunaq & Co.(P.) Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 407 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra (1990) 183 ITR 478 (Bom.) 5. Life Time Reality (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 163 ITD 553 (Mum.Trib.) 8. The AO has also not given any reasoning to controvert the assessee’s reasons regarding paucity of funds and if Assessee Company had sufficient reasons for not paying the self assessment tax at time, then assesse…

ARCH PHARMALABS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Arch Pharma Labs Dcit-32 Ltd. Aayakarbhavan Vs. H Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Ground Floor, M.K. Centre Off; Sakivihar Road, Road, Chandivli, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aaccm0306Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shripurushottamkashyap, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: ShriPurushottamKashyap, DR
Section 140A(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

…case laws. He has not filed the copy of the case laws relied on by him. However, we tried to locate those case laws and could find Nachimuthu Industrial Association vs. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 611 (Mad) affirmed in 235 ITR 190, CIT vs. Raunaq & Co. (P) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 407 (Del), CIT vs. Dadu Wala and Co. [1988] 170 ITR 491 (Raj) , CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 471 (Ker) , CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra [1983] ITR 478 (Bom). 6. Per contra the Ld. DR submits that (i) even after filing the return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29.09.2012, the assessee- company made payment of just Rs.4,…

1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT v. Munni (140 ITR 407) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax