CIT v. Capital Electronics( Gariahat)

257 ITR 677High Court2002#17896 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 139(9)penalty under section 271bsection 273bsection 271bsection 44asection 44absection 44section 133alevy of penaltysection 139(1)reasonable causesection 139

Judgments citing CIT v. Capital Electronics( Gariahat)

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

…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 disallow the claim of carried forward of loss at Rs.1,22…

OJIN BAKERS & RESTAURANT,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 183/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requirement being satisfiedat the time of assessment, the same may not operate to oust the assessee’s case for the relevant deduction. 3.2 Next, we may tabulate the relevant dates:Table A Name Due Date Date of Date of Date of R…

OJIN BAKERS, MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 182/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requirement being satisfiedat the time of assessment, the same may not operate to oust the assessee’s case for the relevant deduction. 3.2 Next, we may tabulate the relevant dates:Table A Name Due Date Date of Date of Date of R…

OJIN BAKERS,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 181/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requirement being satisfiedat the time of assessment, the same may not operate to oust the assessee’s case for the relevant deduction. 3.2 Next, we may tabulate the relevant dates:Table A Name Due Date Date of Date of Date of R…

M/S. ASHWATHI PARA BOILERS AND BULK DRYERS,,HOSPET vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GULBARGA

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

ITA 2171/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ashwathi Para Boilers & Bulk Dryers, C/O Aswathi Apartment, Vivekanandnagar, Hospet. … Appellant Pan:Aatfa 9208L Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Bellary. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri T.Srinivasa, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gulbarga (Kalburgi), [Cit(A)] Dated 30/09/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri T.Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…d Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Dairy (279 ITR 32), decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramkrishna Stores (253 ITR 175) and decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani (257 ITR 677) held that imposition of penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of section 44AB is not mandatory. It is only discretionary power conferred on the AO to impose or not to impose penalty. Further, in view of the provisions of section 273B which provide that when the audit report is not furnished for reasonable cause, penalty is not leviable.…