CIT v. Steel Centre

51 Taxmann.com 127High Court2014#25182 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,232 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Steel Centre

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Supreme Court) (Karnataka High Court decision affirmed in ITA 380 of 2015) 2. CIT vs. Shri Samson Perincherry (Bombay High Court decision affirmed in ITA 1 154 of 2014) 3. CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565(Kar-HC) 4. CIT vs. Steel Centre 51 Taxmann.com 127(Kar-HC) 5. Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT ITA No.6222/Mum/20l3 6. Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers P. Ltd vs. ACIT ITANo.l746/Mum/2011 7. Dharni Developers vs. ACIT 40 ITR 720 (Mum-Trib) 8. H. Lakshminarayana vs. ITO : 61 Taxmann.com 373 (Bang-Trib) 4 Shri Ritesh P Burad 5. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of lower aut…

Annai Arul, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1608/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1608/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘ए” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1608/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Annai Arul, The Income Tax Officer, 210-C, Velachery Main Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Camp Road Junction, Selayur, Chennai 600 045. Chennai 600 073. [PAN:AARFA9083G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Seetharaman, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Res…

M/S. Alpna Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1415/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoalpna Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Ito, Alpna Cinema Building, Ward-1(3), Vs. Model Town, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aacca9729K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…if an addition is made if the explanation of the assessee falls in clause-B of the explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) then no penalty can be levied. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Steel Centre, 51 Taxmann.com 127 (Kar)and submitted that the Hon’ble high court has held that for imposition of penalty is not automatic. If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material for the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could…

CIT v. Steel Centre (51 Taxmann.com 127) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax