ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd.

99 TTJ 405Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#26135 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA -III,KOLKATA vs. COOKME (SPICE)PVT.LTD.

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/120/2011HC Calcutta01 Apr 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St April 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate … For The Appellant. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. 2. This Appeal Has Been Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Affirming The Previous, Contained In Section 269 Ss & Section 209 T Of The Income Tax Act, To The Fact Of The Present Case Simply Because The Parties Are Two Sister Concerns By Overlooking The First Proviso To The Said Section Where Sister Concerns Do Not Come Within The Exception?” 3. The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty Of Rs.5,86,05,738/- Upon The Respondent Assessee Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 209Section 269Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…eposit as contemplated in sec. 269SS or 269T. Further the advances received by the appellant were from proper source and there is no doubt the genuineness of the transactions. In such circumstances Jodhpur Bench in the case of ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd. 99 TTJ 405 (Jd) has held that penalty u/s. 271D should not be levied. In view of above, respectfully following the decisions cited above and keeping in mind the intent and purpose of incorporating sec. 269SS and sec. 269T as explained by CBDT Circular no.387 reported in 152 ITR (St.) 1, I delete the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s. 271D and sec. 271E.” In vi…

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. SIKHYA O ANUSANDHAN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/120/2011HC Orissa03 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St April 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate … For The Appellant. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. 2. This Appeal Has Been Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Affirming The Previous, Contained In Section 269 Ss & Section 209 T Of The Income Tax Act, To The Fact Of The Present Case Simply Because The Parties Are Two Sister Concerns By Overlooking The First Proviso To The Said Section Where Sister Concerns Do Not Come Within The Exception?” 3. The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty Of Rs.5,86,05,738/- Upon The Respondent Assessee Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 209Section 269Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…eposit as contemplated in sec. 269SS or 269T. Further the advances received by the appellant were from proper source and there is no doubt the genuineness of the transactions. In such circumstances Jodhpur Bench in the case of ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd. 99 TTJ 405 (Jd) has held that penalty u/s. 271D should not be levied. In view of above, respectfully following the decisions cited above and keeping in mind the intent and purpose of incorporating sec. 269SS and sec. 269T as explained by CBDT Circular no.387 reported in 152 ITR (St.) 1, I delete the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s. 271D and sec. 271E.” In vi…

Commissioner of Income Tax - I, vs. Agriculture Market Committee,

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITTA/120/2011HC Telangana20 Apr 2011

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St April 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate … For The Appellant. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. 2. This Appeal Has Been Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Affirming The Previous, Contained In Section 269 Ss & Section 209 T Of The Income Tax Act, To The Fact Of The Present Case Simply Because The Parties Are Two Sister Concerns By Overlooking The First Proviso To The Said Section Where Sister Concerns Do Not Come Within The Exception?” 3. The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty Of Rs.5,86,05,738/- Upon The Respondent Assessee Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 209Section 269Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…eposit as contemplated in sec. 269SS or 269T. Further the advances received by the appellant were from proper source and there is no doubt the genuineness of the transactions. In such circumstances Jodhpur Bench in the case of ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd. 99 TTJ 405 (Jd) has held that penalty u/s. 271D should not be levied. In view of above, respectfully following the decisions cited above and keeping in mind the intent and purpose of incorporating sec. 269SS and sec. 269T as explained by CBDT Circular no.387 reported in 152 ITR (St.) 1, I delete the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s. 271D and sec. 271E.” In vi…

ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec Pvt. Ltd. (99 TTJ 405) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax