Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Trading Co.

48 ITD 210Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1994#20953 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Trading Co.

Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Surat vs. Add. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. PAN No. ADGPP 4549 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. PAN No. CDOPP 3300 D Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AR Respondent represented by Shri V…

Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. PAN No. ADGPP 4549 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. PAN No. CDOPP 3300 D Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AR Respondent represented by Shri V…

Shri Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

…suggestion from the revenue that by way of accepting loans and deposits in cash, the assessee has introduced his unaccounted cash in the garb of loans.” (vii) Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the' case of Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Trading Co. (1994) 48 ITD 210 (Chd) while cancelling the penalty under Section 271 D had observed as under: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party is obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumac…

M/S S.R.Associated Construction Co (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - Malda., Malda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…held that where the loan received in cash was from a relative of the partner of the firm, there was a bonajide belief that section 269SS vas not attracted. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the’ case of Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Trading Co. (1994) 48 ITD 210 (Chd) while cancelling the penalty under Section 271 D had observed as under: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party is obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumac…

Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Trading Co. (48 ITD 210) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax