CIT v. Capital Electronics

261 ITR 4High Court2003#12836 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 133A Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 271B Section 273B Section 44AB Section 80

Issues it is cited on

section 139(1)india nfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Capital Electronics

JHARKHAND URJAA SANCHARAN NIGAM LTD.,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(4),, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 78/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80

…TO be carried forward to the tune of Rs.1,22,04,26,668/- in its return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for A Y: 2017-18 on 15.03.2018 disregarding the decisions in the case laws in the cases of CIT Vs Capital Electronics( Gariahat)(2003)261 ITR 4( Cal), ITO Vs Nanak Singh Guliani (2002) 257 ITR 677(MP) and CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (2008) 219 ITR 219( All) which were specifically raised in the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A)? 4. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified on the fact & in circumstances of the case as well as in law to not to interfere with the order of Assessing Officer to disal…

DR. MURUGESH SHANTVEERYA HIREMATH,PUNE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(5), PUNE

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

ITA 1558/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1558/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(5), Hiremath, Pune. 1126/B, Model Colony Road, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aadph0605H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cita Nfac Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Tax Payer Had A Reasonable Cause For Not Getting His Accounts Audited For The Relevant Previous Year. 2) The Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Imposed Under Section 271B Be Cancelled. 3) Such Other Orders Be Passed As Deemed Fit & Proper.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…finding is such that it can conceive of two alternate meaning, then the meaning beneficial to the assessee has to be accepted. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Capital Electronics (261 ITR 4). 3.1 If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of law laid down in the aforementioned decision then even according to facts and circumstances of this case there is material on record according to which it can be said that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-compliance with the provisions of section 44AB. The rea…

SHARADCHANDRA DATTATRAY MULIK,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

SHRI HARIDAS KANANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4793/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Haridas T. Kanani, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 802, B-Wing, Siddhi Tower, Tax, Circle-1, Thane, 6Th Floor, Vs. Bhakti Mandir Road, Ashar, I.T. Park, Road, No. 16-Z, Panchpakhadi, Thane- Wagleindl. Estate, Thane-400604. 400601. Pan No. Abepk4211A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mayur J. Gosrani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 271BSection 44A

…s of the medical certificate. Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in Attinkara Electronics v. ITO 601/Cochin/2018) (ITAT Cochin) dated 01st March, 2019, Maxpro Associates v. ACIT (ITA No. 2087/PN/2014) (ITAT Pune), CIT v. Capital Electronics (2003) 261 ITR 4 (Cal.) and Thanjavur Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors (W.P. No. 1212 of 1998) (Mad.). Also the Ld. counsel submits that the delay in filing of the audit report was because of ill health of the appellant due to which the Shri Haridas T. Kanani 5 accounts were not completed upto the prescribed…

K.DEVENDER REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITTA/187/2005HC Telangana29 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.A.V.A.Siva KartikeyaFor Respondent: Mr.T.Vinod Kumar

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ncome. As per the return of income, the appellant has to get refund only and no notice was served on the assessee for filing the return and the return was voluntary. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in 261 ITR 4 and the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported in 262 ITR 262, in respect of the contention that no penalty can be imposed unless there is a deliberate and willful violation and that the revenue has suffered in consequence of such violation. 4. After giving careful consideration to the arguments of the learned authorized…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE 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 Sain…

SUSHIL KR. HAZRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 237/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Sushil Kumar Hazra -Vs- Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aanph 1619 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 237/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Sushil Kumar Hazra -vs- ITO, Ward-22(2), Kolkata [PAN: AANPH 1619 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 07.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11 .08.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Kolkata in appeal No. 53/CIT(A)-6/Kol/Wd.-55(4)/10-11 dated 30.12.2014 for the assessmen…

SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 3, MUMBAI

ITA 7495/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.Cit, (Tds)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang House, 5Th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal New Marine Lines Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Charni Road Pan:Aadcs 0954 M Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Dharmendra M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 8.10.2014 & 19.5.2014, Of The Cit(A)-14 The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Years.Issue Involved In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K)Of The Act,For Filing Quarterly Returns In Form Number 24Q/ 26Q Belatedly.So,We Are Adjudica - Ting All The Appeals By Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 200(3)Section 254(1)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

…reasonable cause for the said failure.It is said that by reason of the rule of evidence provided in section 273B of the Act,imposition of penalty is dependent on the proof that there was no reasonable cause for the failure.In the matter of Capital Electronics(261 ITR 4),the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has elaborated the concept further.From the said judgment it becomes clear that the omission of the particular phrase from the substantive law(sections 271/272)of the Act and incorporation thereof in the procedural law (section 273),bears the legislative intent to make the provision of various sections coercive inst…