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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co. (322 ITR 86), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271B, Section 44AB, Section 44AA, Section 1872, Section 271A, Section 250.

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co. (322 ITR 86)

Ekam Wines, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

…is complete. After that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB and, therefore, in the instant case, the imposition of penalty under section 271B was erroneous. • Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Company [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) Requirement of getting books of account audited could arise only where books of account are maintained. If for some reason assessee had not maintained books of account, penalty could not be imposed under section 271B. • Ram Parkash C. Puri vs. ACIT 2001 77ITD 210 (Pune) He is required to do something more, i.e. by getting books of a…

Mr. Bandenawaz Mulla, Vijayapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…which recourse has not been taken by the AO. Being so, in our opinion, there is no question of levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act. Accordingly, we place reliance on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Gupta & Company reported in 322 ITR 86 (All.) and delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act. Bandenawaj Mulla, Vijaypur Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th June, 2023 (Beena Pillai) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 7th June, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT…

Bijay Kumar Rout, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2 (3), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 187/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Bijaya Kumar Rout, At/Po: Kumar Rout, At/Po: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adupr 8768 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/0 /04/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 31.10.2022 31.10.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046528073(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 271ASection 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bijaya Kumar Rout, At/PO: Kumar Rout, At/PO: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.ADUPR 8768 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C…

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…he same audited as required U/s 44AB of the Act. Hence, the penalty of levy by the AO U/s 271B is not justified and the same is deleted”. We also rely upon the landmark judgements of H’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All.) where similar findings were given by the honorable court which are as follows: “We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri R.R. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. Sri Mahajan contended that the Tribunal has erred in law while upholding order of the CIT(A) cancelling the pena…

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…the same audited as required U/s 44AB of the Act. Hence, the penalty of levy by the AO U/s 271B is not justified and the same is deleted”. We also rely upon the landmark judgements of H’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All.) where similar findings were given by the honorable court which are as follows: “We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri R.R. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. Sri Mahajan contended that the Tribunal has erred in law while upholding order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penal…

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…& 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 Allahabad 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…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…B of the Act. Hence, the penalty of levy by the AO U/s 271B is not justified and the same is deleted”. 12 Shri Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur. We also rely upon the landmark judgements of H’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All.) where similar findings were given by the honorable court which are as follows: “We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri R.R. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. Sri Mahajan contended that the Tribunal has erred in law while upholding order of the CIT(A) cancelling the pena…