33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

3 SOT 554Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#24355 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269sdomestic companysection 273section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 48section 269child

Judgments citing 33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…e light of the above, we hold that both on law and on facts, the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT under s. 27ID and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not maintainable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied." 33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (3 SOT 554), the brief facts were that the assessee had taken various amounts in cash – each exceeding Rs. 20,000 from seven persons – a totalling to Rs. 10,00,000. The AO imposed penalty under s. 271D of the Act. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that keeping in view the object of introduction of s. 269SS, the case was not searched and seizure case…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…he light of the above, we hold that both on law and on facts, the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT under s. 27ID and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not maintainable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied." 33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (3 SOT 554), the brief facts were that the assessee had taken various amounts in cash – each exceeding Rs. 20,000 from seven persons – a totalling to Rs. 10,00,000. The AO imposed penalty under s. 271D of the Act. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that keeping in view the object of introduction of s. 269SS, the case was not searched and seizure case…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…n the light of the above, we hold that both on law and on facts, the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT under s. 27ID and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not maintainable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied." In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (3 SOT 554), the brief 33. facts were that the assessee had taken various amounts in cash – each exceeding Rs. 20,000 from seven persons – a totalling to Rs. 10,00,000. The AO imposed penalty under s. 271D of the Act. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that keeping in view the object of introduction of s. 269SS, the case was not searched and seizure…

33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (3 SOT 554) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax