A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO

90 ITR 116High Court1973#10168 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO

DHYAN SWAMIBAPA TRUST,SENJALDHAM, TEHSIL : SAVARKUNDLA, DIST: AMRELI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, ITO Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/o. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4th floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. PAN: AAATD1598E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.R Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing…

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…) ltd 66 TTJ 180 (Ahd) - RELYING ON THE OBJECTIVES OF 44AB AUDIT STATED IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO.387 dt.6.7.84. 2.11 The levy of penalty of Rs.150000 without reference to the period of delay is illegal and therefore liable to be cancelled - A.M.Sali Maricar Vs ITO 90 ITR 116 (MAD). :: 3 :: 2.12 The levy of penalty is not warranted as there was no detriment to the revenue by the delay in filing the audit report, as the loss returned has been accepted - ACIT vs Mandavilli Venkateswara rao 44 TTJ 400 (Hyd); AO Vinedale industries pvt ltd. 43 ITD 703 (Hyd); Indian handloom textiles vs AO 68 ITD 560 (Cal); Auto square vs…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…le jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf (supra). In this case, question before Their Lordships was as follows : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar ( 90 ITR 116), the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 140A(3) was legal?" 12. The specific question before Their Lordships was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision holding the relevant section as unconstitutional. Hon'ble High Court concluded as follows : "It should not be overlooke…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…le jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf (supra). In this case, question before Their Lordships was as follows : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar ( 90 ITR 116), the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 140A(3) was legal?" 12. The specific question before Their Lordships was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision holding the relevant section as unconstitutional. Hon'ble High Court concluded as follows : "It should not be overlooke…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…le jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf (supra). In this case, question before Their Lordships was as follows : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar ( 90 ITR 116), the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 140A(3) was legal?" 12. The specific question before Their Lordships was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision holding the relevant section as unconstitutional. Hon'ble High Court concluded as follows : "It should not be overlooke…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…le jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf (supra). In this case, question before Their Lordships was as follows : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar ( 90 ITR 116), the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 140A(3) was legal?" 12. The specific question before Their Lordships was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision holding the relevant section as unconstitutional. Hon'ble High Court concluded as follows : "It should not be overlooke…

SANT SOPANKAKA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SASWAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 215/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Houshang Boman Irani
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.215/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / Sopankaka Bhavan, 1039, Appellant Shukrawar Peth, Opp: PMC Regional Office, Tilak Road, Pune – 411 002. PAN : AAAAS5435L. बनाम v/s The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Ward – 1(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Mayuri Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Houshang Boman Irani. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. 3785/Mum/2016 For (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-1(2)(4), (Formerly Known As Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1St Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaacb2100P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi with Shri C.D. Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT-DR with Shri V.K. Agarwal ( Sr DR)
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…se of CJT\. Smt. Godwaridevi Saraf [ 1978] 113 ITR 589. That was a case in which Their Lordships were in seisin of the question as to "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of'A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [ 1973] 90 ITR 116 (Mad) the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal? The specific question before Their Lordships thus was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision. It was in this context that Hon'ble Bombay High concluded as follows: "It should not be overlooked that IT Act is an al…

DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNELS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)]. That was a case in which Their Lordships were in seisin of the question as to "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar & Anr. vs. ITO & Anr. [(1973) 90 ITR 116 (Mad)] the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal ? The specific question before Their Lordship s thus was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision. It was in this context that Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded as follows: "It should not be overlooked that IT Act…

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3776/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Armaity IchhaporiaFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru (Sr.DR)
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…that case are that for A.Y. 1968-69, the A.O. had levied penalty under section 140A(3) of the Act for non-payment of self assessment tax. On appeal, the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Sail Maricar [1973] 90 ITR 116 wherein it was held that section 140A(3) was violative of provisions of Article 19(l)(f) of the Constitution and the said section was struck down by the by that High Court as being unconstitutional. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of vires of particular provisions under the Act and proceeded on the footing tha…

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…se of CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589. That was a case in which Their Lordships were in seisin of the question as to "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116 (Mad) the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal ? The specific question before Their Lordships thus was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision. It was in this context that Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded as follows: "It should not be overlooked that IT Act i…