CIT v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation

310 ITR 54High Court2009#24558 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1731/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…009-10 Page No 9 Jitendra P. Vaghela vs. ITO IT Act, 1922, would not be applicable, and that the case would come only within the scope of section 28(l)(a) of the said Act. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of CIT vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation (2009) 310 ITR 54(AUIlield that mere failure to file a return of income does not amount to concealment of income or particulars of income. 11. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that mere failure to furnish a return of income does not tantamount to concealment under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the Rev…

ASHOK ARORA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3275/DEL/2009[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ccurate particulars and s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, would not be applicable, and that the case would come only within the scope of s. 28(1)(a) of the said Act. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of CIT vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation (2009) 310 ITR 54 (All) held that mere failure to file a return of income does not amount to concealment of income or particulars of income. 11. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that mere failure to furnish a return of income does not tantamount to concealment under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the Revenu…

M/S SYNIVERSE TELEDATA SYSTEMS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1363/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 10A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP) A No.1363 (Bang) 2014 (Assessment year : 2009-10) M/s Syniverse Teledata Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as MACH Teledata systems Pvt. Ltd) Embassy Tech Park, Block ‘B’ Delta, 3rd Floor, Kadubeesanahalli, Sarjapur-Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore -560 103 Pan No.AACCM5953F Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore Respondent And IT(TP)A No.1460(Bang)/2014 (Assessment year : 2009-10) (By Revenue) Assessee b…