CIT v. Ramaswamy Naidu

208 ITR 377High Court#17183 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 22section 2(15)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)delay in filing appealfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 12aaconcealment of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramaswamy Naidu

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ariation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved against the Penalty orders, the assessee filed further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the Tribunal decisions in assessee’s…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ariation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved against the Penalty orders, the assessee filed further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the Tribunal decisions in assessee’s…

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ariation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved against the Penalty orders, the assessee filed further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the Tribunal decisions in assessee’s…

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…ariation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved against the Penalty orders, the assessee filed further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the Tribunal decisions in assessee’s…

Shri Hasmukh Keshavlal Kesaria-HUF, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 752/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…re was some dispute in respect of interest paid to him therefore, he gave adverse statement though payment to him was made through account payee cheques. Hence, no penalty is required to be levied in the light of decision in the case of CIT v. Ram Swami Naidu 208 ITR 377 (Mad), CIT v. Jalaram Oil Mills 253 ITR 192 (Gujarat) and CIT v. P Roes 260 CTR 397 (Mad). 5. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The perusal of assessment order and penalty order reveals that the assessee has furnished confirma…