Banaras Chemical Factory v. CIT

108 ITR 96High Court1977#18665 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Banaras Chemical Factory v. CIT

Nilesh Subhash Chopda, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on

ITA 2087/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69Section 69C

…51,011/-. 4. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber Works Vs. CIT 79 ITR 63 and judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Chemical Factory Vs. CIT 108 ITR 96 confirmed the levy of penalty. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the aforesaid grounds. 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of AO and the CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the same. 6. Assessee filed an adjournment application dated 05-10-2018 stating that the tax consultan…

Santosh Hastimal Gugale, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1335/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos. 1334 & 1335/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 148Section 271Section 274

…und foundation for the imposition of penalty. This proposition has been laid by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber works Vs. CIT (79 ITR 63) (Del.) and also by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Chemical Factory Vs. CIT (108 ITR 96) (All.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 In the light of the aforesaid discussion on the facts, provision of sec.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1 and decision cited I hold that the appellant was clearly liable for concealing the particulars of income which was detected due to survey operation u/s.133A of the I.T. Act. The admission was m…

Santosh Hastimal Gugale, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1334/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos. 1334 & 1335/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 148Section 271Section 274

…und foundation for the imposition of penalty. This proposition has been laid by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber works Vs. CIT (79 ITR 63) (Del.) and also by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Chemical Factory Vs. CIT (108 ITR 96) (All.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 In the light of the aforesaid discussion on the facts, provision of sec.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1 and decision cited I hold that the appellant was clearly liable for concealing the particulars of income which was detected due to survey operation u/s.133A of the I.T. Act. The admission was m…

Sansui Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(2)(2), 401-C, Gokul Building, Room No. 621-A, Vs. 80A Baroda Street, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Iron Market, S.T. Road, Marg, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaacs8834K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ents on the subject in which we are presently Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. 9 concerned compels us, in order to avoid prolixity, to refer only a few decisions. These are : Durga Timber Works vs. CIT, (1971) 79 ITR 63 (Del); Banaras Chemicals Factory vs. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 96 (All), Ayyasami Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 565 (Mad); India Sea Foods vs. CIT, (1978) 114 ITR 124 (Ker); H.V. Venugopal Chettiar vs. CIT, (1985) 153 ITR 376 (Mad); Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT, (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); CIT vs. Krishna & Co., (1979) 120 ITR 144 (Mad); CIT vs. P.B. Shah & Co. Pr. Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 587 (Cal); CIT…

Banaras Chemical Factory v. CIT (108 ITR 96) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax