CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.

322 ITR 86High Court2010#973 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 366,470 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.

Dilip Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 450/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…there was no question of getting the accounts audited, therefore, there was no question of levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act for such failure. The Tribunal while coming to a particular conclusion, relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs S.K. Gupta & Co. 322 ITR 86 (ALL.) and CIT 5 Dilip Sitaram Bhamare ITA No.448 to461/Mum/2014 vs Bsauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.). No contrary decision was cited from either side. In the present appeals also similar facts were argued to exist, which was not controverted by the Revenue. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Surajamal Parsuram Todi vs CIT (222 ITR 691)(Gau.) he…

Dilip Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…there was no question of getting the accounts audited, therefore, there was no question of levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act for such failure. The Tribunal while coming to a particular conclusion, relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs S.K. Gupta & Co. 322 ITR 86 (ALL.) and CIT 5 Dilip Sitaram Bhamare ITA No.448 to461/Mum/2014 vs Bsauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.). No contrary decision was cited from either side. In the present appeals also similar facts were argued to exist, which was not controverted by the Revenue. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Surajamal Parsuram Todi vs CIT (222 ITR 691)(Gau.) he…

Dilip Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 448/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…there was no question of getting the accounts audited, therefore, there was no question of levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act for such failure. The Tribunal while coming to a particular conclusion, relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs S.K. Gupta & Co. 322 ITR 86 (ALL.) and CIT 5 Dilip Sitaram Bhamare ITA No.448 to461/Mum/2014 vs Bsauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.). No contrary decision was cited from either side. In the present appeals also similar facts were argued to exist, which was not controverted by the Revenue. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Surajamal Parsuram Todi vs CIT (222 ITR 691)(Gau.) he…

Atul A Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 504/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 271Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year: 2001–02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06,2006-07, 2007-08) Atul A Sanghvi, 1607B, Sankarsett, Place, Nana Chowk, ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 007 PAN AHZPS2788P v/s DCIT CEN CIR 11 Mumbai ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing –07.03.2017 Date of Order -16.03.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH: ITA No. 504/Mum/201…

Abu Mansur Ali, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 93/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Abu Mansur Ali -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xviii, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ajwpa 0693 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Of C.I.T.(A)-Central-Ii, Kolkata Relating To Ay 2009-10. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) Whereby The Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing The Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 93/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Abu Mansur Ali -vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-XVIII, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AJWPA 0693 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Date of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 25.11.2013 of C.I.T.(A)-Central-II, Kolkata relating to AY 2009-10. 2. In this a…

Nirmal Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6696/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…lty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring 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 (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 judgments of the two Hon’ble High Courts, we are convinc…

Sh. Nirmal Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6645/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…lty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring 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 (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 judgments of the two Hon’ble High Courts, we are convinc…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…be set aside. In support of these contentions the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the p…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2210/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…be set aside. In support of these contentions the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the p…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2209/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…be set aside. In support of these contentions the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in [1996] 222 ITR 691 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case titled as Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 322 ITR 86 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K.Gupta & Co. & [2014] 360 ITR 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whitelene Chemicals. In the instant case the assessee has filed the return of income by declaring his total income of Rs.5,12,380/-. The appellant is in the p…