7.6.3 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee v. ITO

107 TTJ 671Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#21925 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

royalty incomesection 139(4)advance taxfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)share application moneysection 274concealment of incomecommissioner (appeals)first appealsection 271(1)salary

Judgments citing 7.6.3 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee v. ITO

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…he assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars” 7.6.3 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ 671 (Kol.) “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee, ex-Chief Justice of High Court, having income from salary and royalty, failed to file his return for assessment year under consideration - Since assessment was due to be barred by limitation, assessment under section 1…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…he assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars” 7.6.3 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ 671 (Kol.) “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee, ex-Chief Justice of High Court, having income from salary and royalty, failed to file his return for assessment year under consideration - Since assessment was due to be barred by limitation, assessment under section 1…

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s deducted the tax from the salary, the employee by not including the salary in his return cannot be said to have concealed his income. We therefore agree with the CIT (Appeals) that the penalty was not justified.” 6.2.2 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ 671 (Kol.) “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee, ex-Chief Justice of High Court, having income from salary and royalty, failed to file his return for assessment year under consideration - Since assessment was due to be barred by limitation, assessment under section 1…

7.6.3 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee v. ITO (107 TTJ 671) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax