CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

34 ITR 157Reported decision#20561 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…Section 269T of the Act. In support of this contention, the assessee has relied upon various case-laws(1) CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR (P&H), M/s Lodha Builders P Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) ITR 34 ITR 157 (ITAT, Bombay). Alternatively, it is also stated that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation as the same have not been passed after expiry of financial year in which the quantum proceedings were completed. The assessee has also cited certain case-laws to support this contention. Having considered the submissions, records and the cont…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…Section 269T of the Act. In support of this contention, the assessee has relied upon various case-laws(1) CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR (P&H), M/s Lodha Builders P Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) ITR 34 ITR 157 (ITAT, Bombay). Alternatively, it is also stated that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation as the same have not been passed after expiry of financial year in which the quantum proceedings were completed. The assessee has also cited certain case-laws to support this contention. Having considered the submissions, records and the cont…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…Section 269T of the Act. In support of this contention, the assessee has relied upon various case-laws(1) CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR (P&H), M/s Lodha Builders P Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) ITR 34 ITR 157 (ITAT, Bombay). Alternatively, it is also stated that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation as the same have not been passed after expiry of financial year in which the quantum proceedings were completed. The assessee has also cited certain case-laws to support this contention. Having considered the submissions, records and the cont…

CIT Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Col. Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del), (2) CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel (34 ITR 157) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax