Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF v. ACIT

140 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#19174 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF v. ACIT

GAURANGBHAI CHIMANBHAI KAPADIA,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1889/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, House No.836, Muni Ward No.8, Vs Ward-2, Bhavsar Wad, Nadiad, Kheda-387001 Nadiad Pan : Admpk 6603 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…at all by the assessee and he, therefore, was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act and there was no question of imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act. In another case of Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF vs. ACIT, [2013] 140 ITD 320 (Pune-Trib), the assessee was engaged in online buying and selling of commodities through a commodity exchange, as a speculative activity wherein no physical delivery was taken or given and in these facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by Pune Bench of this Tribunal that total transactions booked by the assessee with commodity exchang…

ANJU CHAMARIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 484/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 484/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anju Chamaria.............................................................................................................................Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seben Brothers Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712105 [Pan: Aeepc6262Q] Vs Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata..................………………………………………................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2022 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Respondent: Date of concluding the hearing : March 15, 2022
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 271BSection 43(5)Section 44A

…lied upon the following decisions in defence of these arguments: “i. ITA 1594 to 1598/Kol/2004, The Kalna Town Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. ii. ITA 3215/Chny/2019, Shri Dwaraknath Krishnaram iii. ITA 441/Mum/2011 iv. Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 320 (PN)” 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. After hearing the rival submission and on careful perusal of material available on record, we find that the AO imposed penalty for not getting the accounts audited as according to the AO turnover exceeds the threshold limit as prescr…

D. KRISHNARAM,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 7 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3215/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3215/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. Dwaraknath Krishnaram Income Tax Officer, “Sai Sri Saraswathi” Non Corporate Ward – 7(3), Flat No.5, Vivek Apartments, Vs. Nungambakkam High Road, 3Rd Floor, Building New No.9, Chennai – 600 034. I-Block, 1St Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102 [Pan: Ahvpk 3978P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai In Ita No.7/Cit(A)-7/2018-19 Dated 30.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. :- 2 -: 2. Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

…ed and penalty levied. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that in similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Pune Benches in the case of Banwari Sitaram Pasari [HUF] vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax reported in 140 ITD 320 has held that the transactions of :- 3 -: buying and selling of commodities is a speculative activity where no physical delivery is taken or given and consequently there was no turnover constituted for the purpose of considering the liability of the assessee to get his accounts audited. Consequently, no penalty u/s.271B was liable to be levied on…

SANGEETA KESHARWANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Sangeeta Kesharwani V/S. Income Tax Officer 134F, Sukhi Sansar Ward-47(3), 3,Govt. Apartment, Salkia School Place (West), Road, Golabari, Howrah- Kolkata-700 001 711 106 [Pan No.Agvpk 8338 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Pinki Shaw, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Probhas Roy, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13 -11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.01.2018 Passed In Case No.68/Cit(A)-14/Wd-47(3)/2016-17 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹25,000/- Involving Proceedings U/S 271A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing U/S 271A For Not Maintaining Books Of Account Regarding Derivatives Trading In Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer As Well As Cit(A) Are Of The View That The Assessee’S Future & Options Transactions (F&O) Value Reads A Figure Of

Section 271ASection 44A

…essee’s profits u/s44AF @ 0.25% on turnover come to ₹39,49,110/- as against the statutory threshold limit of ₹40 lac u/s 44AF of the Act in the relevant previous year. The tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in Banwari Sitaram Pasari (HUF) vs. ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 320/29 taxmann.com (Pune Trib.) holds that the turnover in such case of trading of commodities as a speculation activity does not involve total transactions’ figure as adopted by both the lower appellate proceedings. We therefore delete the impugned penalty forming subject-matter of instant lis on this count alone. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowe…

Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF v. ACIT (140 ITD 320) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax