76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. v. Commissioner Of Income

136 ITR 716Reported decision#11079 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 131(1A)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 275section 271esection 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)section 131(1a)retracted statementsection 269sssection 271d

Judgments citing 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. v. Commissioner Of Income

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…enalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR 619 Kerala. Thus the onus is heavy on the Department to not o…

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

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

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.372/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, बनाम The Income Tax Officer, Prop.M/s Ahmedgarh, Ward-1(3), Aayakar Tanker Transport Co., Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ANZPS8434Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Saumya Singh, Adv. राज"व क" ओ…

76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. v. Commissioner Of Income (136 ITR 716) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax