ACIT v. Amar Chand Raj Kumar

89 ITD 96Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#8193 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Amar Chand Raj Kumar

JIMMY GEORGE,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Jimmy George, Vs. Builders Merchant, Circle & Tps, Mc Road, Thellakom P.O, Kottayam Kottayam. Pan – Agapg 4989 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Giriy Albert, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 8o

…012-13 which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2oi8) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 25/01/2014 which was made available o the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now the s…

G.C VIDYADEVI,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Gc Vidyadevi, Vs. Thuruthel Marine Fuels, Ward – 5, Alappuzha Range, Kuzhithura P.O, Alappuzha. Karunagappaly, Kollam – 690 542. Pan – Amupv 6583 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv Revenue By : Smt. Giriy Albert, Snr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Snr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 8o

…012-13 which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2oi8) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 25/01/2014 which was made available o the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now the s…

CHACK DE INDIA FOREX PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chack De India Forex Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-1(4)(1), Gurudwara Lane, 30, Rishikesh. Dehradun Road, Post Rishikesh, Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcc2707N

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chatterjee, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 256Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chack De India Forex Pvt. Vs ITO, Ltd., Ward-1(4)(1), Gurudwara Lane, 30, Rishikesh. Dehradun Road, Post Rishikesh, Dehradun. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCC2707N Assessee by : Shri V.K. Chatterjee, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing: 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27 .04.2022 ORDER Per: Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member: The present appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2017 pas…

SRI .K.P.MUSTHAFA,KANNUR vs. THE ACIT, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 624/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 271B

…ction which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the 6 I.T.A. Nos.62…

SRI .K.P.MUSTHAFA,KANNUR vs. THE ACIT, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 271B

…ction which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the 6 I.T.A. Nos.62…

ARKA EDUSERVE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAR-1(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sumanlunkar C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renuga Devi, J.C.I.T (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Arka Eduserve Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, No.319, 17th Cross, 25th Main, Ward-1(1)(2), VI Phase, J.P Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 078. PAN – AAHCA 3289 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sumanlunkar C.A Respondent by : Smt. Renuga Devi, J.C.I.T (DR) Date of hearing : 27.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dat…

SRI.M.ABDULAZEEZ,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 301/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.N.S.RajagopalFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)Section 44A

…ection which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459 & 185 /CTK/ 2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now…

SRI.M.ABDULAZEEZ,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 300/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.N.S.RajagopalFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)Section 44A

…ection which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459 & 185 /CTK/ 2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now…

SRI.M.ABDULAZEEZ,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 299/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.N.S.RajagopalFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)Section 44A

…ection which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459 & 185 /CTK/ 2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now…

M/S.JEENA HOTEL & UDAYA BAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271BSection 44A

…cern which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). I.T.A. No.265/Coch/2018 8.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 11/03/2009 which was made available to the Assessing Officer before passing the assessmen…

SRI.ANIL KUMAR L,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 393/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheer AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

…ction which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now the…

ATTINKARA ELECTRONICS,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ction which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now th…

M/S.JOHNS BIWHEELERS, ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80J

…ystem, the data got erased and no back up date was maintained. The Ld. AR relied on following decisions wherein it was held that filing of report is only directory and not mandatory: a) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations (103 ITR 835) b) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj (89 ITD 96) c) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITAT, Cuttack in ITA 459 & 185/CTK/2017). It was also submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the delay within the meaning of s.273B of the Act. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). I.T.A. No.411/Coch/2018 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In this case, the ass…

SRI.T.T.KURUVILLA,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 504/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…-13 which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 25/01/2014 which was made available o the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now…