CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.

322 ITR 86High Court2010#983 most cited

What is CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co. authority for?

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co. · 322 ITR 86 · Section 271A · Section 271B · Section 44AA · Section 44AB · penalty for non-maintenance of books · penalty for non-audit · simultaneous penalties · deletion of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271BSection 44ABSection 44AASection 1872Section 271ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)penalty under section 271bsection 44aasection 271bdeletion of penaltysection 271asection 44asection 18section 44absection 44penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.

RCUBE AMALAGAMATIONS,KOLLUKADU MEDU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3164/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3164/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Saravanan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…f the Act and the CIT(A) confirmed the same. Aggrieved, now assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. 28.2 Before us, ld.counsel for the assessee made only one statement that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty…

ANITA MEHROTRA,NARENDRA SADAN vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 137/ALLD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271BSection 44A

…der dated 07/03/2023 (c) ITAT Delhi Bench order in the case of Arvind Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer, [2025] 137 TCL 174, I.T.A. No.1035/Del/2023, order dated 09/01/2025 (d) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order in the case of CIT vs. S. K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All) (C.2) A paper book containing the following particulars was filed from Revenue’s side: I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 14 I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 15 I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 16 I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 17 (C.2.1) The oral submissions made at the time…

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 173/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Patna28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…23 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 05. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. SK Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), decision of co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 130 (Jaipur-Trib.) and co-ordinate bench of Rajkot in case of Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara Vs. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1591, submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and only some details of suppresse…

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 171/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Patna28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…23 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 05. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. SK Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), decision of co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 130 (Jaipur-Trib.) and co-ordinate bench of Rajkot in case of Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara Vs. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1591, submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and only some details of suppresse…

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 169/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…23 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 05. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. SK Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), decision of co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 130 (Jaipur-Trib.) and co-ordinate bench of Rajkot in case of Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara Vs. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1591, submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and only some details of suppresse…

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 168/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…23 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 05. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. SK Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), decision of co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 130 (Jaipur-Trib.) and co-ordinate bench of Rajkot in case of Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara Vs. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1591, submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and only some details of suppresse…

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 167/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…23 & Ors Nand Kumar Prasad; A.Y. 2014-15 05. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of CIT Vs. SK Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), decision of co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 130 (Jaipur-Trib.) and co-ordinate bench of Rajkot in case of Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara Vs. ITO (2024) 159 taxmann.com 1591, submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and only some details of suppresse…

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…) it has been held that section Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), it has been held that requirement of getting books of account audited could arise only where books of account are maintained. If for some reason the assessee had not maintained books of account, penalty could not be imposed under section 271B. Hence in view of these judicial pronouncements, the additional ground of appeal is allowed a…

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…) it has been held that section Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad), it has been held that requirement of getting books of account audited could arise only where books of account are maintained. If for some reason the assessee had not maintained books of account, penalty could not be imposed under section 271B. Hence in view of these judicial pronouncements, the additional ground of appeal is allowed a…

NARESH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO CHARKHI DADRI, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 122/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. After considering the details submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by Assessing Officer.

Section 271BSection 271DSection 44A

…laws: 1. Yogendera Singh Shekhwat Vs ITO (ITA 1001/JP/2016) Order dt 24th April 2017 (ITAT Jaipur) (Page 64-68) following and approving the case laws: (i) CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (299 ITR 219) (Allahabad). Naresh Kumar vs. ITO (ii) CIT Vs. S K Gupta (2010) 322 ITR 86(Allahabad). (iii) CIT Vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi (1996)222 ITR 691 (Gauhati). That it is apparent and transpired from the record that no prior approval / sanction has been obtained from Jt. CIT before passing a penalty order u/s 271B. (CIT Appeal Order Page 18). The relevant para speaks of the procedure, but no document has been placed on the asse…

BRIGHT SINGH CHELLADURAI,NAGERCOIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Bright Singh Chelladurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli. Kanyakumari-629 001. [Pan: Atvpb 0028 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ase of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., reported in [1973] 88 ITR 192, the view/interpretation which favours the assessee may be adopted. The Ld.AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. SK Gupta & Co., reported in [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All) and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT reported in [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati), wherein, the High Court’s held ITA No.1428/Chny/2023 for AY 2015-16 Bright Singh Chelladurai :: 4 :: that once books of accounts of the assessee are not maintained and penalty u/s.271A of the Act has been levied, then…

HARESH GHASHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2), KALYAN

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

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…(A.Y. 2016-17) Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs. ITO standi by the ld. A.O. to levy penalty u/s. 271B of the Act. The assessee has relied on a catena of the decisions in support of his claim, which are mentioned here under: 1. CIT vs. S K Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 4. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. ITO (in ITA No. 6696 & 6645/Del/2014) 11. It is a settled proposition of law that once the penalty has been levied u/s. 271A of the Act for non maintenance of books of accounts, then pen…

HARESH GHANSHYAMDAS MAKHIJA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), KALYAN

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

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…(A.Y. 2016-17) Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs. ITO standi by the ld. A.O. to levy penalty u/s. 271B of the Act. The assessee has relied on a catena of the decisions in support of his claim, which are mentioned here under: 1. CIT vs. S K Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 4. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. ITO (in ITA No. 6696 & 6645/Del/2014) 11. It is a settled proposition of law that once the penalty has been levied u/s. 271A of the Act for non maintenance of books of accounts, then pen…

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Manphool Singh Income Tax Officer, Vs. C-142, Mangal Marg, Bapu Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEPPS 4925 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dev Arora (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…& 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Aliahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there Can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act. In view of the foregoing legal position emanating from the judgment of the two Hon’ble High Courts, we are convinced…

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…& 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Aliahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there Can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act. In view of the foregoing legal position emanating from the judgment of the two Hon’ble High Courts, we are convinced…

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 147/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…ot getting audited such books of accounts which were admittedly not maintained by the assessee. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that…

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 145/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…ot getting audited such books of accounts which were admittedly not maintained by the assessee. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that…

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…ot getting audited such books of accounts which were admittedly not maintained by the assessee. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that…

VARADAGOVIND PARTHASARTHY IYER (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ARVIND IYER),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…he books of accounts audited and therefore, no penalty u/s.271B can be applied. In support, he relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Court:- 3 Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (Through legal Heir Arvind Iyer) 1. CIT vs SK. Gupta and Co. [2010]322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 5. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that turnover was more than Rs.1 Crore and assessee was required to get the accounts audited. 6. After considering the relevant facts placed on record and also the orders pas…

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6