Chandra Cement Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

99 TTJ 212Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21712 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pe penalty under section 271d section 269t section 269s domestic company section 273 section 269ss section 273b section 271d section 48 section 269 child

Judgments citing Chandra Cement Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…niraju due to the situation beyond the control of the assessee. 21. At this point, it is appropriate to refer to few judgments on the subject. JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 31 22. In the case of Chandra Cement Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT , 99 TTJ 212 (Agra) the brief facts were that the appellant-company was setting up mini cement plant at village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur. Shri R.P. Goyal was and has been its promoter-director as well as C.M.D. For establishment of the plant, the appellant approached financial institutions who sanctioned the loan in January, 1992. Pending the d…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…account, the assessee was forced to take cash loan from Sh. K Muniraju due to the situation beyond the control of the assessee. 21. At this point, it is appropriate to refer to few judgments on the subject. In the case of Chandra Cement Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT , 99 TTJ 212 (Agra) 22. the brief facts were that the appellant-company was setting up mini cement plant at village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur. Shri R.P. Goyal was and has been its promoter-director as well as C.M.D. For establishment of the plant, the appellant approached financial institutions who sanctioned the loan in January, 1992. Pending t…

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

…is not based on any action or proceedings under the Income Tax Act in case of the assessee and hence the initiation itself is illegal and bad in law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision in case of Sharda Educational Trust vs. ACIT, 99 TTJ 212 (Agra). The ld. A/R has further contended that the penalty under section 271D is governed by section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act and for initiation of penalty there must be some proceedings on the basis of which action for imposition of the penalty has been initiated. Thus in the proceedings under the Act if the AO is satisfied that the assessee has…