Anchor Pressing Pvt Ltd. v. CIT

49 ITD 668Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#20965 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Anchor Pressing Pvt Ltd. v. CIT

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

…sions that Sec.44AB was only 'directory1 and NOT mandatory - CIT vs Sivananda electronics 209 ITR 63 (Bom); AO vs Rameshchandra & co 47 TTJ 887 (Indore); CBDT circular No.387 dt.6.7.84 -152 ITR 11 (ST) - Purpose of Sec.44AB; Bangalore Steel Distributors vs AO 49 ITD 668 (Bangalore); AO vs Saphire traders (p) 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…

B Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Muralidharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…arbitrary on the ground that the belated Act on the part of the assessee to get either or both the pieces of work done is not punishable under this particular provision as held in the case of Bangalore Steel Distributors vs Income Tax Officer reported in 1994 49 ITD 668. 3. The learned officer ought to have appreciated the fact that there was a short delay of only 4 months in filing the audit certificate under section 44AB and therefore the penalty being discretionary could not have been levied since the delay was short and an explanation was also furnished for the delay and considering the circumstances of the c…

Prem Prakash Senapati, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 185/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

…e Act. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions and relied on the following judgments: i) Calcutta Chrome Type Pvt Ltd vs ITO, 80 ITR 627. ii) Anchor Pressing Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 136 ITR 505 (All) iii) Bangalore Steel Distributors vs ITO, 49 ITD 668 (Bang) iv) CIT vs. Iqbalpur Co-operative Chrome Development Union Ltd, 23 DTR 60 (Utt) V) Rupali Dying and Printing Works, 86 Taxman 124 vi) Kartika Enterprises, 114 Taxman 46. 14. Before us, ld A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 15. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 16. We h…

Mr. Prem Prakash Senapati, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 459/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A