(i) Mrs. Manju Kataruka v. ITO

3 SOT 414Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#17585 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 273section 271fsection 273bsection 271bsection 271(1)(b)rejection of books of accountsection 44asection 44absection 274section 44section 250(6)section 151

Judgments citing (i) Mrs. Manju Kataruka v. ITO

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

…no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether 15 I.T.A. No…

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

…no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether 15 I.T.A. No…

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

…no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether 15 I.T.A. No…

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

…no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether 15 I.T.A. No…

Suresh Ramanbhai Naik L/H of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Suresh Ramanbhai Naik, I.T.O., L/R Of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. 41, Meghna Raw House, Near Surat. Maharaja Agrasen Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat-395003. Pan No. Akqpd 5495 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271FSection 274

…s reasonable cause within the scope of Section 273B of the Act and in such circumstances, no penalty under Section 271F is leviable. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: (i) Mrs. Manju Kataruka Vs ITO (2005) 3 SOT 414 (Kol). (ii) R.S. Investment Vs. ITO (2011) 15 taxmann.com 270 (Delhi) (iii) NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 292 (Delhi) 4 Suresh Ramanbhai Naik Vs ITO 5. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the part…

(i) Mrs. Manju Kataruka v. ITO (3 SOT 414) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax