CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works

246 ITR 216High Court2000#20078 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works

Sri Joy Barman, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-42(3), Kolkata

ITA 600/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…plausible explanation which excludes an intention to conceal, as happened in CIT vs. Mohamed Haneef (N A) reported in 83 ITR 2015(SC). (c) Your appellant further submits the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works - reported in 246 ITR 216 where held that mere admission does not justify Penalty even in the light of the Explanation to section 271 (l)( c) where the High Court endorsed the decision of the Tribunal, which had followed the decision in the case of similar surrender of cash credits on the condition that no penalty will be levied. Mere agreement for addition does not mean…

Sri Joy Barman, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-42(3), Kolkata

ITA 599/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…plausible explanation which excludes an intention to conceal, as happened in CIT vs. Mohamed Haneef (N A) reported in 83 ITR 2015(SC). (c) Your appellant further submits the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works - reported in 246 ITR 216 where held that mere admission does not justify Penalty even in the light of the Explanation to section 271 (l)( c) where the High Court endorsed the decision of the Tribunal, which had followed the decision in the case of similar surrender of cash credits on the condition that no penalty will be levied. Mere agreement for addition does not mean…

Smt. Ishrat Begum, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal is allowed

ITA 926/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ishrat Begum, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv. Ward 1(3), 282-Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut. (Pan: Airpb8927G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V.K. Goel, Adv. Department By: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Whereby The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Upheld The Penalty Of Rs.3,12,477 Levied Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 4. The Relevant Facts Assessee That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Was Asked To Explain The Source Of Deposit Of Rs.10,80,303 In Her Bank Account. The Assessee Tried To Explain By Stating

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…t. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd. – 322 ITR 158 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Balbir Singh – 164 Taxman 65 ( P&H ); iii) K.C. Builders Vs. ACIT (2004) – 265 ITR 512 (SC); iv) CIT vs. Saran Khansari Sugar Works- 246 ITR 216 (P&H); v ) CIT vs. Ganesh Rice Mills – 12 Taxmann.com 274 (All.). vi) Northland Dev. & Hotel Corporation vs. CIT (2012) – 25 Taxmann.com 369 (SC). 6. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with this submission that only on detection that the explanation of the assessee regarding the source…

Mrs. Kamlesh Madan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4333/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…vate Ltd. vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 - CIT vs. Deeksha Holdings Ltd. 196 Taxman 183 - CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) - CIT vs. Moti Lal & Co. (1990) 184 ITR 288 - ACIT vs. Smita Commercial & Investment Private Limited 90 Taxman 275 (Delhi); (2000) 246 ITR 216 (Del.) - ACIT vs. Smt. Geeta Devi (2001) 79 ITD 347 (Del.) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the counsel and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith the written arguments and the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. 7.1 I find that s…

CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works (246 ITR 216) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax