CIT v. Mysore Fertilisers Co.

137 ITR 378High Court1982#18485 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132A Section 250 Section 269SS Section 269ST Section 269T Section 271DA Section 271E

Judgments citing CIT v. Mysore Fertilisers Co.

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

…cause’ “The expression ‘sufficient cause’ implies no 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…

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

…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 [Del]; [viii] The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of ACTT [TM] Vs. M/s. Image Health Care Limited, in ITA No. 658/Hyd/2015, order dated 01/12/2015. [ix] In view of the above submissions and also the p…

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4126/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sugandha Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Adv

Section 13(4)Section 221Section 221(1)

…dgments, wherein it has been held that financial stringency is considered to be good and sufficient cause for sufficiency of reason for not levying penalty u/s 221(1). The lists of such judgments are as under :- 1. Addnl. CIT vs. Free Wheels India Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 378 (Del) 2. ACIT vs. Rakesh Kumar Garg (2015) 64 Taxman.com 367 (Del Trib.) 3. CIT vs. Raunaq & Co.(P.) Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 407 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra (1990) 183 ITR 478 (Bom.) 5. Life Time Reality (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 163 ITD 553 (Mum.Trib.) 8. The AO has also not given any reasoning to controvert the assessee’s reasons regarding…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 20…