CIT V/s Bombay Conductor Electricals (2008) 301 ITR 238 Guj. 2) Omec Engineers v. CIT

80 TTJ 82Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#21421 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pe penalty under section 271d section 269t section 269s domestic company section 273 section 269ss section 273b section 271d section 48 section 269 child

Judgments citing CIT V/s Bombay Conductor Electricals (2008) 301 ITR 238 Guj. 2) Omec Engineers v. CIT

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…t being out of unaccounted cash or the deposit having been made with an effort to explain or introduce cash in the garb of loan/deposit. In view of all these facts, we, after following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Farrukhabad Investment India Ltd. (80 TTJ 82, Del) accept the assessee's plea that there was no violation of the provisions of s. 269SS and cancel the penalty. 35. Further, in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., 41 DTR 305 (Hyd), the Hyderabad Tribunal held as follows:- “17. In the present case, assessee is subject to rules laid down by cooperative society Act and the assessee has…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…t being out of unaccounted cash or the deposit having been made with an effort to explain or introduce cash in the garb of loan/deposit. In view of all these facts, we, after following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Farrukhabad Investment India Ltd. (80 TTJ 82, Del) accept the assessee's plea that there was no violation of the provisions of s. 269SS and cancel the penalty. Further, in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., 41 DTR 35. 305 (Hyd), the Hyderabad Tribunal held as follows:- “17. In the present case, assessee is subject to rules laid down by cooperative society Act and the assessee has…

The ITO, Ward -1, Surat vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 612/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

…cal or venial nature and no penalty be levied. Reliance is placed on following case low:- 1) CIT V/s Bombay Conductor Electricals (2008) 301 ITR 238 Guj. 2) Omec Engineers V/s CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, Jharkhand 3) Farrukhbad Investment (I) ltd. V/s JCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 82.ITAT Delhi 4) DIT (Exemption) V/s All India Deaf and Dumb Society 2005 198 CTR Del 376. 5) CIT V/s Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog 2007 211 CTR (Raj) 8.5 To sum up, a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of s:s, 271D; 27IE and 273B clearly reveals the use of expression ‘shall be liable to pay’ and the provisions of s. 273.6 providing that no…