Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT

144 TTJ 663Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#13427 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Mahender Kumar Valecha, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…2016 as apparent from the submission filed by the appellant, more than 2 years after the penalty order was passed. The case of the appellant is directly covered by Hon’ble ITAT's order in DCIT vs Pioneer Marble and Interiors (P) Ltd (2012) 68 DTR 1 (Kol.'A')/ 144 TTJ 663 (Kol'A') wherein it is been held that once the entire tax and interest have been duly paid within the time limit as per the notice of demand under section 156 and well before the conclusion of impugned penalty proceedings, the assessee cannot be denied immunity Page 24 of 27 under section 271AAA(2) and the penalty under section 271AAA was rightly…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of income, resulting in refund claim of Rs 5,47,810, which 'takes…

Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of income, resulting in refund claim of Rs 5,47,810, which 'takes…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of income, resulting in refund claim of Rs 5,47,810, which 'takes…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of income, resulting in refund claim of Rs 5,47,810, which 'takes…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of income, resulting in refund claim of Rs 5,47,810, which 'takes…

Subhajit Kr. Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate manner by which the undisclosed income was earned by him. Therefore, penalty u/s. 271AA of the Act was levied. However, we note that Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors Pvt. Ltd. reported 144 TTJ 663 has held as under:- ITA No.685/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Subhajit Kr. Ghosh Vs. DCITCC-XXV, Kol. Page 5 “on the facts of the instant case wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time-limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be den…

Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT (144 TTJ 663) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax