238 ITR 63 (Andhra Pradesh); Addl. CIT v. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad

167 ITR 880High Court1987#23010 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing 238 ITR 63 (Andhra Pradesh); Addl. CIT v. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad

JCIT(OSD), Bathinda vs. Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Written submission)
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…elled for which the reliance is placed on the judgment of supreme court in the case of K.C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 135 Taxman 461 (SC) in which the following judgmensts have been discussed. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 880 (Pat.) "Held, that the penalty was based on the earlier assessment order wherein the amount representing cash credits was included. Since that order had been set aside and the 4 I.T.A. No. 251/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 cash credits deleted from the assessment, the consequent order of penalty had been rightly cancelled." (p. 881) CIT v…

Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (3), Jalandhar vs. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur W/O Sh. Kulwant Singh, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 124/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 124/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Ward-4(3), Jalandhar W/o Sh. Kulwant Singh 1-Atwal House, Cantt Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AIKPK 9383L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by : Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order d…

ITO-27(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Shree Harshad Jefellers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 27(3)(3) V. M/S. Shree Harshad Jewellers Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Shop No. 3, Kailash Mahal Vashi Railway Station Complex 60Feet Road, Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai - 400077 Pan: Aabfs2290R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Sanghavi Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ll88/Ahd/2010 dated 10.12.10; CIT vs. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2004] 265 ITR 326 (Rajasthan); City Dry Fish Co. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 63 (Andhra Pradesh); Addl. CIT vs. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad [1993] 200 ITR 206 (All.) and CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P. ) Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 880 (Pat.) to name a few. 5.2 In view of the above, the penalty levied by the AO of Rs.8,74,485/- vide order dated 13.03.2018 is held to be infructuous and is deleted. All the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are treated as allowed.” 7. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the order passed in deleting the p…