CIT v. S. Krishnaswamy

219 ITR 607Reported decision#13762 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Krishnaswamy

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not at all justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act. In view of the above finding, question No. 2 need not be answered". The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607 holding the same view observed as under: " We have considered the rival submissions on the above aspect. Taking into account the facts found as well as the legal position, we have necessarily to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue and reject that of learned counsel for the assessee. First of all, it is clear to us that this is…

CIT v. S. Krishnaswamy (219 ITR 607) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax