Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. v. JCIT

85 ITR 230High Court2003#18352 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. v. JCIT

Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1, Nashik

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

ITA 609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pamod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…d proportionate to the share holding. It only. states that advances given to the extent of accumulated profit of the company has to be considered as deemed dividend. Identical issue arose before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Mayur Madhukant Mehta (85 ITR 230) wherein Hon'ble Court rejected the contention of the assessee and held as under: "6. If there is one rule of construction clearer than any other, it is that the meaning of a statutory provision must be gathered from a plain natural construction of the words used by the legislature. If the words of the statutory provision are themselves precise an…

Shri Raghubir Bhuwalka, Howrah vs. JCIT, Range - 46, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…1 Raghubir Bhuwalka, AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2443/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Raghubir Bhuwalka Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AFUPB7381Q) Range-46, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 13.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2020 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an a…

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…56 Asian Business Connection Private Limited 135 Taxman 77 (Madras) • Income-tax Officer Vis. Ajanta Cycles (P.) Ltd. [2008] 22 SOT 1 (Chandigarh) • CIT Vis. Arati Debi 111 ITR 277 (Cal.) • CIT Vs P.K. Abubucker (Mad) 259 ITR 507 • Mayur Madhukant Mehta 85 ITR 230 (GUj) 46. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, it is concluded that the amount of Rs. 429.50 crore given by AOPL to ABC was a transaction squarely covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The A.O. has rightly restricted the addition in Rs.297,74,68,364/- to the extent of accumulated reserves and surplus of ABC. The addit…

Ranjit Roy, Hooghly vs. JCIT, Range - 23, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR

Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…f the provisions of the Act as such, the default, if any, was attributable to ignorance of statutory provisions of the act. The assessee’s case finds support from the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. V. JCIT (2003) 85 ITR 230 (Del) where the professional auditors, experts in the field of taxation, did not point out any violation of S. 269 SS of the Act, it was held that it would be too much to expect from the assessee to know these provisions and as such the penalty imposed was deleted considering ignorance to be a “reasonable cause”. In the instant case also, the audi…

Avijit Saha, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range-2, Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 269SSection 271D

…1 Avijit Saha AY 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Avijit Saha (PAN: AYZPS9600H) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Hooghly Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 15.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement 24.05.2017 For the Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 29.01.2015 for AY 2009-10. 2. The main grievan…