How many judgments cite CIT v. Saini Medical Stores?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Saini Medical Stores (277 ITR 420), spanning 2015 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Saini Medical Stores come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271D, Section 271E.

CIT v. Saini Medical Stores

277 ITR 420High Court2005#5242 most cited

What is CIT v. Saini Medical Stores authority for?

Penalty under Section 271D or 271E can be deleted if there is a reasonable cause, such as a bona fide belief and genuine transactions, that did not prejudice the revenue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Saini Medical Stores · penalty under section 271d · penalty under section 271e · section 273b · reasonable cause · bona fide belief · genuineness of transactions · technical default

Sections most often in play

Section 271D Section 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269s section 271e section 269ss section 273 section 271d section 269 section 273b penalty under section 271(1)(c)genuineness of the transaction section 26 section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. Saini Medical Stores

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…were tapped from relatives and friends and also joined a private committee foraging funds. 4.2 Further in support of his submission, the Ld. A/R also relied on the following judgements of the Hon’ble court’s: (i) CIT V/s Saini medical store (P& H High Court) 277 ITR 420 (ii) CIT V/s Luxmi trust company (Madras High Court) 303 ITR 99 4.3 Further the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a graduate in bachelor of arts and was unaware of the technicalities of Income tax law and the assessee was not liable for tax audit, he engaged services of part time accountant for maintaining his books of accounts and for filing…

Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi vs. M/S Muthoot Financiers, New Delhi

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015

Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

…1 SCC 431, Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. 2. (2013) 354 ITR 9 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.Sivakumar. 3. (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema). 4. (2005) 277 ITR 420 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saini Medical Store. 5. (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the answer to the issue which arises for our consideration has its contours in realm of the Partnership Law as well as the Act.…