CIT v. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd.

320 ITR 498High Court2010#24612 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd.

RAJARAJESWARI KRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SIVAKASI vs. ITO, COPORATE WARD 4, MADRAI, MADURAI

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

ITA 1201/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1201/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajarajeswari Krafts Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 900, Kamak Road, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi – 626 189. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcr-8256-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 271BSection 44A

…d reasonable cause for such delay. Accordingly, the cited decision of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Balaji Logistics is applicable in the case of the assessee. 9. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 498 (Mad), inter alia, held that no penalty is imposable u/s 271B of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly. Penalty is leviable only if the assessee fails to get his accounts audited and obtain a report. 10. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the…

JIGNESHBHAI RASIKBHAI SAVALIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Income Tax Officer, Ward B/1 Bombay Market, No.1(2)(2), Aayakar Vs Umarwada, Surat-395003 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan No: Aobps 3537 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 21.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 09.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2) Surat, Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.02.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.69,210/- U/S 271B Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Jigneshbhai R. Savalia 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Ground(S) Either Before Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…he decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagat Rice Mills (2006) 160 TAXMAN 0005 (All) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 364 (Mad) and CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. 320 ITR 498 (Mad). 4. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that turnover of assessee was exceeding Rs.1.00 crore of the specified limit as per provision of Section 44AB. The assessee failed to comply the said Section 44AB and accordingly liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act. The NFAC/ Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the acti…

M/S B. W. M INTERNATIONAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1006/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S B. W. M International Vs. I.T.O, Ward – 44(4), Kolkata. 4, Meer Boharghat Street, Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfb 3904 B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri T. K. Chakraborty, Advocate. राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Kalyannath, Acit सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-13, Kolkata In Appeal No.562/Cit(A)-13/W-44(4)/14-15, Dated 23.04.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 26.03.2010. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding Penalty Of Rs.1,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The I.T. Act Without Recording Any Finding As To How The Submission Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable As Evidence. 2.That, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 271B Of The I.T Act Without Legally Considering The Provision Of Sec. 273B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. K. Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KalyanNath, ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…I.T.A.T., Jobbalpur Bench in the case of Lalta Prasad Chaurasia -VS- I.T.O. 104, Taxman 110 and also the decision of Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T.- VS - Apex Laboratories Pvt. M/s B. W. M International Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 498 (Madras).The C.I.T. (A) - 13, Kolkata while disposing of this case cited the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of River View Bar & Silver Restaurant -VS - C.I.T. (Central), 211 Taxman 187 (Ker) and also the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of C.I.T. -Vs - Capital Electronics, 261, ITR 4 (Cal). The Counsel submitted us that the…