Badri Prasad Om Prakash v. CIT

163 ITR 440High Court1987#19398 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Badri Prasad Om Prakash v. CIT

Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Chidambaram vs. ITO Ward 3, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1842/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…is not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that his statement is not supported by any evidence ITA No.1841 & 1842 /2019 :- 10 -: on record. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Badri Prasad Om Prakash vs. CIT, [1987] 163 ITR 440 had held that wherever the assessee had failed to rebut the factual position on the basis of which addition was made, the levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act was justified. Thus, it is clear case of concealment and Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act. The contention of the assessee that in show cause n…

Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Chidambaram vs. ITO Ward 3, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1841/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…is not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that his statement is not supported by any evidence ITA No.1841 & 1842 /2019 :- 10 -: on record. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Badri Prasad Om Prakash vs. CIT, [1987] 163 ITR 440 had held that wherever the assessee had failed to rebut the factual position on the basis of which addition was made, the levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act was justified. Thus, it is clear case of concealment and Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act. The contention of the assessee that in show cause n…

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…lty is attracted. Similar view has been upheld by several courts in the following judgments:- > Dayabhai Girdharbai Vs CIT (80m) 32 ITR 677 > CIT Vs Haji P. Mohammed (Ker) 132 ITR 623 > Mahavir Metal Works Vs CIT (P&H) ~ > Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs CIT (Raj) 163 ITR 440 > S.R. Arulprakasam Vs Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (Mad) 163 ITR 487 > F.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (Gauhati) 102 ITR 408 > CIT Vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (Mad) 110 ITR 602 > Ravi & Co. Vs ACIT (Mad) 271 ITR 286 5.3 It is an obligatory duty cast upon income derived from any source under various heads and indicate the income under each head, which is charg…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty as was found in CIT vs. Ramdas Pharmacy, CIT vs. Sri Rajaram Cloth Stores and CIT vs. Raja Corpn. The issue as to whether such return is voluntary would be a question of fact. It was so held in Badshah Prasad vs. CIT and Badri Prasad Om Prakash (1987) 163 ITR 440 (Raj). But revised return did not save the taxpayer where the finding was otherwise or such finding in favour of the taxpayer could not be supported on the basis of materials available as was held in Amjad Ali Nazir Ali vs. CIT, CIT vs. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar, Addl. CIT vs. Radhey Shyam, Nandlal Kanaiyalal vs.CIT and CIT vs. K. Mahim. In CIT…

Badri Prasad Om Prakash v. CIT (163 ITR 440) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax