ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. DR K SATISH SHETTY

310 ITR 366Reported decision2009#13989 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. DR K SATISH SHETTY

Decent Junction Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Kollam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 44ASection 80J

…along with return of income. For this purpose, we place reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Pawan Cotton Mills Vs. ITO (90 TTJ 1057). 5.5 Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT & Another Vs. Dr. K. Satish Shetty (2009) 310 ITR 366 (Karn.), wherein held that “assessee was required to e-file the audit report for the first time and prior to that no such reports were being furnished. Hence, the penalty should not be levied.” Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied by the ld. AO in this case. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open co…

Thekkekunnathu Muhammed Fayas, Ernakulam vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Alwyn Cleetus, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 44ASection 80J

…along with return of income. For this purpose, we place reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Pawan Cotton Mills Vs. ITO (90 TTJ 1057). 5.5 Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT & Another Vs. Dr. K. Satish Shetty (2009) 310 ITR 366 (Karn.), wherein held that “assessee was required to e-file the audit report for the first time and prior to that no such reports were being furnished. Hence, the penalty should not be levied.” Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied by the ld. AO in this case. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open co…

Keshav Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6575/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

…s. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors - [2008] 299 ITR 219 (All). ClT Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. - [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All) and of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in ACIT and Another Vs. Dr. K. Satish Shetty - [2009] 310 ITR 366 (Karn) in support of his arguments. He submitted that the assessee has been separately penalized for non-maintenance of accounts by the Assessing Officer by levying penalty of Rs. 25,000/- by order dated 26.09.2013 and has filed a copy thereof before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty twice…

Keshav Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6574/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

…s. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors - [2008] 299 ITR 219 (All). ClT Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. - [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All) and of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in ACIT and Another Vs. Dr. K. Satish Shetty - [2009] 310 ITR 366 (Karn) in support of his arguments. He submitted that the assessee has been separately penalized for non-maintenance of accounts by the Assessing Officer by levying penalty of Rs. 25,000/- by order dated 26.09.2013 and has filed a copy thereof before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty twice…

Govind Garg, Kekri vs. ITO, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: written submissionFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…er problem of the system. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on various case laws which have been taken into consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee taking the support of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of ACIT & Anr vs. Dr. K. Satish Shetty (2009) 310 ITR 366 submitted that that this is first time when assessee was required to e-file the audit report and prior to that no such reports were being furnished. Hence, the penalty should not be levied. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the lower authorities u/s 271B of the Act on…

M/S. Koramangala Club vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA/173/2009HC Karnataka26 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ITA Nos.279 & 280/2010 C/W ITA No.173/2009 BETWEEN: M/S. KORAMANGALA CLUB CA 17, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS HON’BLE SECRETARY MR.C RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O MR.CHINAPPA REDDY (IN ITA 279 & 280/2010) MR.G.RAM PRASAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF MR.G.VEERARAGHAVAIAH. (IN ITA 173/2009) …. APPELLANT (COMMON IN BOTH THE CASES) (BY SMT.JIN…

M/S Koramangala Club vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA/279/2010HC Karnataka26 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ITA Nos.279 & 280/2010 C/W ITA No.173/2009 BETWEEN: M/S. KORAMANGALA CLUB CA 17, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS HON’BLE SECRETARY MR.C RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O MR.CHINAPPA REDDY (IN ITA 279 & 280/2010) MR.G.RAM PRASAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF MR.G.VEERARAGHAVAIAH. (IN ITA 173/2009) …. APPELLANT (COMMON IN BOTH THE CASES) (BY SMT.JIN…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. DR K SATISH SHETTY (310 ITR 366) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax