CIT v. Narayani & Sons (P) Ltd.

141 DTR 315High Court2016#13446 most cited
7

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Narayani & Sons (P) Ltd.

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 3136/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…ted in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 – 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. C…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 3135/CHNY/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…ted in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 – 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. C…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 3134/CHNY/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…ted in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 – 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. C…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 3133/CHNY/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…ted in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 – 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. C…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 3132/CHNY/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…ted in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 – 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. C…

SHRI JANARDHANAM BALAJI,,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3077/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R.Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3011 & 3077/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-2013 Shri. Janardhanam Balaji, Vs. The Additional Commissioner No.164, CTH Road, of Income Tax, Thendral Nagar, Kancheepuram Range, Thiruninravur, Kancheepuram. Chennai 602 024. [PAN AIUPB4446K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by :…

JANARDHANAM BALAJI,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3011/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R.Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3011 & 3077/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-2013 Shri. Janardhanam Balaji, Vs. The Additional Commissioner No.164, CTH Road, of Income Tax, Thendral Nagar, Kancheepuram Range, Thiruninravur, Kancheepuram. Chennai 602 024. [PAN AIUPB4446K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by :…

CIT v. Narayani & Sons (P) Ltd. (141 DTR 315) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax