CIT v. Maya Rani Punj

92 ITR 394High Court1973#13087 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2016.

Judgments citing CIT v. Maya Rani Punj

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7034/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…rted in 83 ITR 26(SC) has held that “at least in some exceptional cases, discretion vested in the officer should be used to drop proceedings”. A reference can also be made to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Maya Rani Reported in 92 ITR 394(Del), wherein it has been held by the Jurisdictional High Court that word „may‟ used in section 271(1) means that the authorities have a discretion either to levy or not to levy a penalty. 31 It is submitted that the present is not a case of any entry provider who indulge in money laundering type activities rather a case of a reputed assessee who…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…4 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cann…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…4 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cann…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…icates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be exercised mechanically. M.P. Laxman v. Agri. ITO…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…4 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cann…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…4 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cann…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…icates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT – (1975) 99 ITR 41 (AP) CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Malik – (1976) 104 ITR 648 (Ori) CIT vs. V.M. Modi & Sons- (1976) 102 ITR 548 (MP) B. Muniappa Goundere vs. CIT – (1976) 102 ITR 787 (Mad) The power to impose penalty has to be exercised judicially with due regard to all facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be exercised mechanically. M.P. Laxman v. Agri. ITO…

M/S. Amin Chand Payarelal vs. Inspecting Asstt.Commnr., Income Tax &Ors

C.A. No.-004114-004114 - 2001Supreme Court05 Sept 2006
For Respondent: Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner,Income Tax & Ors
Section 139Section 156Section 271

…ion 139. Therefore, the decision, of the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Santosh Industries, (1974) 93 ITR 563. of the Karnataka High Court in Nagappa v. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR 32 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CIT, (1975) 99 ITR 41, of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia (1976) 103 ITR 613 [FB] and of the Allahabad High Court in Metal India Products v. CIT, (1978) 113 ITR 830 [FB] cannot be invoked in the instant case. They are cases dealing with a return filed in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section 139." Meaning thereby that case…

CIT v. Maya Rani Punj (92 ITR 394) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax