Gangotri Textiles v. CIT

121 Taxmann.com 171High Court2020#2759 most cited

What is Gangotri Textiles v. CIT authority for?

A defect in a penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), such as not specifying whether the penalty is for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, is not fatal if the assessee understood the charge and raised the defect for the first time at the High Court stage.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gangotri Textiles v. CIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · defective penalty notice · non-specification of limb · inaccurate particulars of income · concealment of income · waiver of defect · challenge first time before High Court · penalty proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 271AABSection 132(4)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(c)penalty proceedings initiatedfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 274penalty u/s 271(1)(c)non-application of mindconcealment of incomesection 271aabprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 271(1)

Judgments citing Gangotri Textiles v. CIT

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…against which revenue’s Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. The Ld. Sr. DR, has similarly relied on decision of High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 8. Upon perusal of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as extracted above, we find that though the applicable clause has been ti…

M.Arun, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 573/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद$ एवं "ी मनोमोहन दास, "ाियक सद$ के सम( BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09 M. Arun DCIT No.53, Rajasekaran Street, Vs. Central Circle-II(4), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AAGPA-8202-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT : 09.05.…

D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ce, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. 12. The revenue has relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. V/s DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) which is distinguishable on facts. In this case, it is the findings that the assessee had understood the notices well and filed replies contesting the levy of penalty. The legal ground assailing defect in notice was raised for the first time before Hon’ble High Court and therefore, Hon’ble Court declined to entertain the same However, th…

Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. ITO - 9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 384/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30 . 03 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18 . 04 .…

Mr Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 383/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Income Tax Officer- 305, 2a, Raheja Classique, 9(2)(3), Room No.601A, 6th Floor, New Link Road, Vs. Oshowara, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 061 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAAPT4832B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30 . 03 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18 . 04 .…

R.M Chemicals P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT/Ait 4 (1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 353/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,इंदौर"यायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.R.M. Chemicals ACIT , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AAACR7154D Assessee by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, CA and Shri Yash Kukreja, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.08.2022passed by learned Commissi…

Rajan Kalimuthu, Chennai vs. CIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 336/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…on filed by the revenue was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court. However, this plea was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (403 ITR 407) as well as the decision in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. vs. DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171). Further, the issue was to be decided only on merits as directed by the Tribunal. 5. On merits, it transpired that the assessee sold land and building for Rs.200 Lacs and no capital gains were reflected against the same since the proceeds thereof were invested in purchase of land for construction. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that this transacti…

ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Kewalchand Kothari, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2537/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

…gs and submitted that the provisions of Sec.271AAB would not apply to the disclosure made by the assessee. This being the case, the arguments of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 20. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. V/s DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171; 25.08.2020) supports our view. In this case, Hon’ble Court refused to entertain similar plea raised by the assessee at appellate stage. This decision considers earlier decision rendered in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V/s ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250; 23.04.2018). The subsequent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Pr. CIT V/s R. Elangovan (…

ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Sardarmal Kothari, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2536/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

…gs and submitted that the provisions of Sec.271AAB would not apply to the disclosure made by the assessee. This being the case, the arguments of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 20. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. V/s DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171; 25.08.2020) supports our view. In this case, Hon’ble Court refused to entertain similar plea raised by the assessee at appellate stage. This decision considers earlier decision rendered in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V/s ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250; 23.04.2018). The subsequent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Pr. CIT V/s R. Elangovan (…

ACIT Centrla Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Shantilal Kothari, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2535/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

…gs and submitted that the provisions of Sec.271AAB would not apply to the disclosure made by the assessee. This being the case, the arguments of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 20. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. V/s DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171; 25.08.2020) supports our view. In this case, Hon’ble Court refused to entertain similar plea raised by the assessee at appellate stage. This decision considers earlier decision rendered in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V/s ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250; 23.04.2018). The subsequent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Pr. CIT V/s R. Elangovan (…

ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ghisulai Kothari, Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2534/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 271A

…gs and submitted that the provisions of Sec.271AAB would not apply to the disclosure made by the assessee. This being the case, the arguments of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 20. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. V/s DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171; 25.08.2020) supports our view. In this case, Hon’ble Court refused to entertain similar plea raised by the assessee at appellate stage. This decision considers earlier decision rendered in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V/s ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250; 23.04.2018). The subsequent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Pr. CIT V/s R. Elangovan (…

Kishor Madhav Paranjape, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1887/PUN/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The DCIT, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. PAN: ABIPP 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Suhas P Bora – AR Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe– DR Date of hearing 28/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal file…

Pvp Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.778/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. PVP Ventures Ltd. DCIT बनाम/ 9th Floor, KRM Centre, Corporate Circle-5(2), Vs. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACS-3101-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.R ""…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 908/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 907/CHNY/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 906/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Special Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 3.3 Having heard the rival submissions and after due consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as un…