CIT v. Chitranjali (1986) 159 ITR 801 (Cal), F.C. Agarwal v. CIT

52 ITR 591High Court1964#15996 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 271 section 27 business

Judgments citing CIT v. Chitranjali (1986) 159 ITR 801 (Cal), F.C. Agarwal v. CIT

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…may ask, is the AO supposed to firm-up his mind in the matter without considering the assessee’s explanation? The difference between the two may in the facts of a case may even otherwise be very thin, as observed in Sivagaminatha Moopnar & Sons v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 591 (Mad), or may overlap, as noted in A.M. Shah & Co. v.CIT[1999] 238 ITR 415 (Guj). The dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.S. Emrald’s case is not per a speaking order. In Sum 7.1 We may capsule our findings. There have to be, it may be appreciated, strong reasons for selling goods at rate/s below par, much less recovering indirect…

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…it is equally permissible in law for the assessing authority to hold it to be a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, as indeed expressed by the Hon’ble Court in Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 591 (Mad), so that nothing turns on the non-identification of the specific charge, much less in the show cause notice u/s. 274. The said notice, as afore-stated, is not a jurisdictional notice, but only a device to provide an opportunity of hearing in the matter to the assessee, and being a non-statutory notice, it would suffice where all it mentions…

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…petition, would not attract penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to the judgment of Hon`ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax,( 27 June, 1961)52 ITR 591 (Mad), wherein it was held as follows: “ Section 22(3) provides that, where a person furnishing a return discovers an omission or wrong statement therein, he could furnish a revised return at any time before the assessment is made. Therefore, in a case where the original return does not contain the true particulars by reason of a genuine mistake o…

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…e, i.e., in the final analysis, much less lead to any prejudice? It needs to be appreciated, and is to be borne in mind, that the primary and relevant facts are only in the special knowledge of the assessee. Why, in Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 591 (Mad), the Hon'ble High Court found the assessee to have concealed the particulars of income and, at any rate, furnished inaccurate particulars of income, to of course no adverse consequence. This, in fact, is the premise of the said Explanation, inferring ‘deliberateness’ where therefore these facts are not forthcoming, or an explanation in their…

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DCIT

ITA - 132 / 2008HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 260A

…riginal return, the assessment proceedings leading up to the revised return do not get obliterated. The decisions in CIT v. Chitranjali (1986) 159 ITR 801 (Cal), F.C. Agarwal v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 408 (Gau.) and Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons v. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 591 (Mad) appear to support this proposition. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shivpuri, it could never have been intended by the legislature that the filing of the revised would wipe out the proceedings that have taken place till then. This would include the documents gathered or filed, and statements made, during the course of the assessment proce…

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/132/2008HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 260A