Chaubey Overseas Corporation v. CIT

303 ITR 9High Court2008#24388 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Chaubey Overseas Corporation v. CIT

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…Section 269SS was rightly levied/confirmed by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon following judicial pronouncements : a) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chaubey Overseas Corporation v. CIT, reported in (2008) 303 ITR 9(All. HC). ITA No.46/Alld./2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT, Varanasi b) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Goyal, reported in (2005) 274 ITR 53(P&H HC). c) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Ajay Goel v. ACIT, rep…

Assanar & Sons, Kottayam vs. Jtcit, Kottayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…ITA No.191/Coch/2014 Assanar & Sons, Kottayam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assanar & Sons Kanjirappally JCIT Kottayam Range Kottayam 686 507 Vs. Kottayam PAN NO : AADFA6784E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Thomas Cherian, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee in this case originally came in appeal before this Tribunal agai…

Maman Singh, Delhi vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1255/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Maman Singh, Vs. Jcit, Range-Ii, C/O- Sh. Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Atvps9067P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Gurgaon, Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Levied Under Section 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Joint/ Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269T Of The Act During Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271E Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 18,00,000/- Wrongly Imposed For Alleged Violation Of Section 269T Of The Act. Ii. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 274

…way of cash. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, did not accept the plea of the assessee relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Choubely Oversees Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , (2008) 303 ITR 9 (Allahabad), where in similar circumstances, the return of advance for supply of silk fabrics was held as return of deposits and levy of penalty was sustained. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred the findings of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Choubey Oversees Corporation (supra) holding that the appli…