CIT v. A. Srinivasa Pai

197 ITR 232High Court#23373 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Srinivasa Pai

M/S. Kashish Enterprise, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kashish Enterprise Vs. Ito, Poonam Apartment, New Ward – 2, Station Road, Bhuj-Kutch Bhuj. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1.0 The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2.0 The Ld Cit(A)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A)] Erred In Facts As Also In Retaining Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Income Of Rs.55,53,360/-. The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Kindly Be Deleted. 3.0 The Honor’S Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or More Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of assessee having indulged in an act of concealment of income in the form of unverifiable purchases.” 6.5 Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. A. Srinivasa Pai 242 ITR 29. In the case of CIT vs. K. A. Sampat Reddy 197 ITR 232. the Hon’ble. Karnataka High Court has held that when survey of business premises led to impounding of books which revealed various erroneous entries, the imposition of penalty was valid since the revised return was filed only after discovery of concealment by the revenue. The facts of the present case are very much covered by the above decisions…

A.V.K. Viswanadha Raju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 146/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…1(1)(c). However, this is a case where the assessee has not shown his investment in the return of income and it is only during the course of survey that this investment in property came to light. I place reliance on the cases of CIT Vis KA Sampath Reddy (KAR) 197 ITR 232 and Biland Ram Hargen Das Vs. CIT (All) 171 ITR 390 where in it was held that where a survey was conducted and certain erroneous entries are noticed and assessee agreed to the assessment, imposition of penalty is held to be valid. These cases are very much applicable to the present case and penalty is exigible. 4.3 Further, in the following case…

Shri. Muninaga Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

…evy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of the assessee's contentions the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the following decisions :- i) CIT V Gem Granites, ITA No.504 of 2009 (Madras H C) ii) CIT V K.P. Sampath Reddy 197 ITR 232 (Kar) iii) CIT V Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 357 ITR 565 (Kar). iv) CIT V SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del) v) CIT V Career Education & Infotech, 336 ITR 257 (P&H) 4.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully con…