CIT v. Senior Accounts Officer

276 ITR 84High Court2005#24161 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Senior Accounts Officer

JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi

ITA 369/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kathuria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhoop Singh, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sed its claim and has also revised it in its revised return filed well in time. Again, the fact that the appellant is a Government of India enterprise and in my view, the ratio as laid in CIT V. Senior Accounts Officer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [2005J 276 ITR 84 (MP)(supra)also squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Also, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. ITO [ITD 100, 029/ TTJ 107, 372, ITAT Nagpur (supra) relied upon by the appellant, it is held inter alia, "There could be no personal gain to assessee as it is a Government company and therefore, allegation in the orders of Lower Authoriti…

M/S. Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 6597/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR
Section 143Section 194CSection 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 274

…e and as such penalty is not sustainable, by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI – (2001) 252 ITR 471 (Del.). 10. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Senior Accounts Officer – (2005) 276 ITR 84 (MP) while deciding the identical issue also decided the same in favour of the assessee as it was not a case of deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to avoid payment by way of deduction for being deposited. 11. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court also CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd. – (2011) 11 taxmann.com 66 (Delhi) also deleted the penal…

M/S. Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 6596/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR
Section 143Section 194CSection 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 274

…e and as such penalty is not sustainable, by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI – (2001) 252 ITR 471 (Del.). 10. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Senior Accounts Officer – (2005) 276 ITR 84 (MP) while deciding the identical issue also decided the same in favour of the assessee as it was not a case of deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to avoid payment by way of deduction for being deposited. 11. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court also CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd. – (2011) 11 taxmann.com 66 (Delhi) also deleted the penal…

CIT v. Senior Accounts Officer (276 ITR 84) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax