CIT v. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.

183 ITR 471High Court1990#12616 most cited
8

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

Sections most often in play

Section 132ASection 250Section 269SSSection 269STSection 269TSection 271DASection 271E

Judgments citing CIT v. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.

FINESSE INTERNATIONAL DESIGN PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL RANGE-1 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2561/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Siddharth Bhimsingh Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132ASection 250Section 269SSection 271D

…negligence nor inaction nor want of bonafides on the part of the party”. 14. Reliance is being placed on the following case laws with regard to good and sufficient cause:  CIT vs. Mysore Fertilizer Co. 145 ITR 91 (Mad.)  CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. 183 ITR 471 (Ker.)  CIT vs. Jaipur Electro P. Ltd. 183 ITR 476 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra 183 ITR 478 (Bom.) 15. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Guwathi in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Smt. Prahati Baruah in ITA No. 418/Guwahati/1998 has held as under: “5. Further, section 269T was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961, originally by the Income-tax (Se…

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1284/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 221

…amounts to "good and sufficient reason". [vii] The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning and also the principles as laid out or derived out from the decisions of various Hon'ble Court in the country:  CIT Vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 471 [Ker];  CIT Vs. Jaipur Electro [P] Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 476 [Raj];  CIT Vs. Bhikaji Ramachandra [1990] 183 ITR 478 [Born];  CIT Vs. Raunaq Et Co., [P] Ltd., [1983] 140 ITR 407 [Del]; Page 6 of 10 ITA Nos. 1283 & 1284/Bang/2017  CIT Vs. Mysore Fertilisers Co., [1984] 145 ITR 91 [Mad];  Addl. CIT Vs. Free Wheels India Ltd., [1982] 137 ITR 378…

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1283/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 221

…amounts to "good and sufficient reason". [vii] The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning and also the principles as laid out or derived out from the decisions of various Hon'ble Court in the country:  CIT Vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 471 [Ker];  CIT Vs. Jaipur Electro [P] Ltd., [1990] 183 ITR 476 [Raj];  CIT Vs. Bhikaji Ramachandra [1990] 183 ITR 478 [Born];  CIT Vs. Raunaq Et Co., [P] Ltd., [1983] 140 ITR 407 [Del]; Page 6 of 10 ITA Nos. 1283 & 1284/Bang/2017  CIT Vs. Mysore Fertilisers Co., [1984] 145 ITR 91 [Mad];  Addl. CIT Vs. Free Wheels India Ltd., [1982] 137 ITR 378…

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6898/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

…so receivable has actually been received out of total interest receivable from NBFC to the tune of Rs,9,04,92,507/-. The appellant company has also relied on the following case laws: CIT vs. Bikaji Ramchandra 183 ITR 478 BOM CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT vs. Dadu Vala & Co. (1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT. VS Munni lal & Co. (2006) 157 taxman 466 (Raj) CIT vs. Raunaq & Co Pr. LTd (1983) 140 ITR 407, 411 (Del) CIT V. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.( 1990) 183 ITR 471 474 (ker) CIT Vs. Dadu Wala &…

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6897/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

…so receivable has actually been received out of total interest receivable from NBFC to the tune of Rs,9,04,92,507/-. The appellant company has also relied on the following case laws: CIT vs. Bikaji Ramchandra 183 ITR 478 BOM CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT vs. Dadu Vala & Co. (1998) 170 ITR 491 (Raj) CIT vs. Smt. Vijayanthimala (1977) 108 ITR 882 (Mad.) CIT. VS Munni lal & Co. (2006) 157 taxman 466 (Raj) CIT vs. Raunaq & Co Pr. LTd (1983) 140 ITR 407, 411 (Del) CIT V. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.( 1990) 183 ITR 471 474 (ker) CIT Vs. Dadu Wala &…

M/S.MITHRA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT CIT(TDS), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 115Section 194BSection 201Section 271BSection 271CSection 271C(1)Section 274

…ores Therefore, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to deposit the tax deducted at source within the permissible time. Reliance was placed in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estate Ltd. 183 ITR 471 in which it was held that when default was for good and sufficient reason, no penalty is leviable. According to learned A.R., financial stringency was the reasonable cause. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-XVIII Delhi vs. Bank of Nova Scotia, Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2008…

ARCH PHARMALABS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Arch Pharma Labs Dcit-32 Ltd. Aayakarbhavan Vs. H Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Ground Floor, M.K. Centre Off; Sakivihar Road, Road, Chandivli, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aaccm0306Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shripurushottamkashyap, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: ShriPurushottamKashyap, DR
Section 140A(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

…s and could find Nachimuthu Industrial Association vs. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 611 (Mad) affirmed in 235 ITR 190, CIT vs. Raunaq & Co. (P) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 407 (Del), CIT vs. Dadu Wala and Co. [1988] 170 ITR 491 (Raj) , CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 471 (Ker) , CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra [1983] ITR 478 (Bom). 6. Per contra the Ld. DR submits that (i) even after filing the return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29.09.2012, the assessee- company made payment of just Rs.4,80,00,000/- in instalments till the time of passing the penalty order by the AO, which was passed four months afte…

M/S. GALAXY NIRMAAN PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1247/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Acit, Cc-12, New Delhi Galaxy Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd., 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar –Iv, New Delhi Pan : Aaccg5553D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/01/2014 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2010-11, In Relation To Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer For Non-Payment Of Self-Assessment Tax By The Assessee. In The Form No. 36 Filed Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Raised Ground Of Appeal As Under:

Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 140A(1)Section 140A(3)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221

…433 : (1985) 45 CTR 146 : (1985) 155 ITR 63 (Cal) In the facts of the following cases, paucity of funds was held to be a good and sufficient reason for the non-payment of taxes. CIT vs. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. (1989) 47 Taxman 166: (1989) 80 CTR 69: (1990) 183 ITR 471 (Ker); CIT vs. jaipur Electro P. Ltd. (1990) 183 ITR 476 (Raj) CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra (1990) 183 ITR 478 (Bom). Because the assessee is perturbed and is in distressful situation, as well as there are sufficient reasons for the non-payment of tax, therefore, it is requested before your good-self to kindly not to levy any penalty u/s 140A(3).”…