CIT v. Dr. M.K. Gupta 1978 CTR (All) 36

113 ITR 473High Court1978#22153 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. M.K. Gupta 1978 CTR (All) 36

BETA MASCHINENFABRIK (P) LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. R.R.Maurya, Adv. and Sh. Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 132Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he quantum assessment order alone are not sufficient to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee automatically in each and every case. I rely upon the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of (i) CIT vs. MK Gupta reported in 113 ITR 473, (ii) Banaras Page 6 of 8 ITA 87/Del/2018 A.Y.:2009-10 Beta Maschinenfabrik (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-1 Textorium vs. CIT, 169 ITR 782 and (iii) CIT vs. Ishtiaq Hussain, 232 ITR 673. 9.1. The A.O. in the penalty order merely by following the order of Ld.CIT on quantum, levied penalty against assessee which is similarly confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A…

SHRI MANAV KEJRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…is not in the prescribed form, or is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return". The identical view seems to have been expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Dr. M.K. Gupta 1978 CTR (All) 36, (1978) 113 ITR 473 (All). Again, in CIT vs. Dr. Krishan Lal I.T.A. No. 1342/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 4 of 5 Goyal (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 135; (1984) 148 ITR 283 (P&H); TC 9R. 628, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a return is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return. Hon'ble jurisdict…

SRI MANAB KEJRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.698/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manab Kejriwal, Block-9, Flat Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.5H, 5Th Floor, Space Town Ward-49(2), Kolkata Housing Complex, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-170052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Awjpk 1519 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Srivastava सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed (A.M.): The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Vide Memo No. Cit-Xvii/U/S263/2012-13/1154-1157 Dated 26-2-2014, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvii, (Cit For Short) Kolkata, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-2010, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Passing The Order U/ S. 263 When The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, The Issue Was Not Examined By The Ao , The Assessment Was Completed Which Itself Was Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Proceedings U/S. 263 Are Also Void-Ab Initio. 3. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S. 263 When All The Issues Raised In The Show Cause Notice Had Been Considered & Categorically Spelt Out By The Ao In His Order Passed U/S. 144, Duly Examined By Him Since The Assessment Itself Was Taken Up For Scrutiny Only On The Basis Of The Air Information In Respect Of The Impugned Amounts. 4. For That The Ld. Cit Himself Should Have Decided The Issue, Call For The Records & Examined The Same When The Specific Issue Was Taken Up Before The Ld. Cit That The Appellant Did Not File Any Return.

For Appellant: Shri S.M.SuranaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava

Section 139(1)Section 140Section 144Section 263

…is not in the prescribed form, or is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return”. The identical view seems to have been expressed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Dr. M.K. Gupta 1978 CTR (All) 36 : (1978) 113 ITR 473 (All). Again, in CIT vs. Dr. Krishan Lal Goyal (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 135 : (1984) 148 ITR 283 (P&H) : TC 9R.628, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a return is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 C…