CIT v. Ashok Construction Co.

280 ITR 368High Court2006#15529 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Construction Co.

Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal, 275 ITR 113 (All.). 6 (ii) Addl.CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, 123 ITR 874 (MP). (iii) Addl.CIT vs. Kantilal Jain, 125 ITR 373 (MP). (iv) Jyoti Ranjan Roy, vs. PCIT, ITA No.1015/Kol/2017. (v) CIT vs. Ashok Construction Company, 280 ITR 368 (All). (vi) CIT vs. Associated Contractors Corpn. 275 ITR 123 (All). 9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel of the assessee also relied on various judgements / decisions (cited supra) in support of his contention that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act are discretionary and based upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer an…

Bbcpl-Skpl (Jv), Jamui vs. PCIT Central, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessment proceeding which renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This had been held so in case of CIT vs. Ganeshilal Ramkrishna (2006) 154 Taxman 238 (Allahabad), and in case of CIT vs. Ashok Construction Co. (2006) 280 ITR 368. The claim that subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment on 24.03.2021, the penalty proceedings u/s 271B was initiated and penalty has been imposed vide order dated 31.01.2023, is also not acceptable. The proceeding having been not initiated during the course of assessment, initiation and imposition of such penalty u/s 271B is not sustainab…

Balkrishna Bhalotia Construction Private Limited, Jamui vs. PCIT Central, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…the assessment proceeding which renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This had been held so in case of CIT vs. Ganeshilal Ramkrishna (2006) 154 Taxman 238 (Allahabad), and in case of CIT vs. Ashok Construction Co. (2006) 280 ITR 368. The claim that subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment on 24.03.2021, the penalty proceedings u/s 271B was initiated and penalty has been imposed vide order dated 31.01.2023, is also not acceptable. The proceeding having been not initiated during the course of assessment, initiation and imposition of such penalty u/s 271B is not sustainab…

Bbcpl-Rcpl (Jv), Jamui vs. PCIT Central, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…he assessment proceeding which renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This had been held so, in case of CIT vs. Ganeshilal Ramkrishna (2006) 154 Taxman 238 (Allahabad), and in case of CIT vs. Ashok Construction Co. (2006) 280 ITR 368. 6. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the assessment order dated 24.03.2021 in this case, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order is therefore cancelled and set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after examination of impounded materials, examination of expenses claimed and allowability…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 82/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…lowing decisions and held that conjoint reading of section 263 and 271 of the Act establishes that the Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to take action u/s 263 for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in a suitable case. (a) CIT Vs. Ashok Constructions [280 ITR 368 (Allahabad High Court)] (b) CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [273 ITR 113 (Allahabad High Court)] (c) Star Diamond Tools Vs. ITO [1 ITD 696/14 TTJ 59 (ITAT Mumbai)] 2.3. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed in this case that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment years under consideration, though the assessee had taxable in…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 81/VIZ/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…lowing decisions and held that conjoint reading of section 263 and 271 of the Act establishes that the Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to take action u/s 263 for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in a suitable case. (a) CIT Vs. Ashok Constructions [280 ITR 368 (Allahabad High Court)] (b) CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [273 ITR 113 (Allahabad High Court)] (c) Star Diamond Tools Vs. ITO [1 ITD 696/14 TTJ 59 (ITAT Mumbai)] 2.3. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed in this case that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment years under consideration, though the assessee had taxable in…

CIT v. Ashok Construction Co. (280 ITR 368) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax