ITO v. Bindra Ban Bansi Lal

78 ITD 228Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#16112 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 44AB Section 44AD Section 44AE

Judgments citing ITO v. Bindra Ban Bansi Lal

Harjeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 129/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…ed as commission agent for issuance of CR notes. Further it is amply proved by following verdicts that freight amounts in case of GR note agent is not his turnover :- 1. Hon`ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer v/s Bindra Ban Bansi Lal (78 ITD 228), 2. Hon`ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Income ax Officer v/s Shantilal Chunilal & Co. (45 ITD 581) Guidelines of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 3. their Guidance note for audit u/s 44AB wherein it has been stated that If the property in goods or all significant risks and rewards of ownership of goods continue to belong…

Konatham Kotireddy, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Vamseedhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)

Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…he appellant's case the provisions of section 44AB are not attracted. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of Page 4 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy ITO vs Bindra Ban Bansi Lal (2001) 78 ITD 228(Asr), The same was ignored by the leaned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), which is incorrect and bad in law. 5. It is further submitted that, the CIT(A) was not justified, in the foregoing circumstances, to ignore the facts placed before him and without giving reasonable opportunity to submit the further information, if any, and dismiss t…

Nilkanth Developers, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed

ITA 2222/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44Section 44A

…nd subsequently furnishing the tax audit report which was accepted by the revenue without pointing out any defect. 7.7. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the order of Amritsar tribunal in the case of ITO versus Bindra Ban Bansi Lal reported in 78 ITD 228 wherein it was held as under: “There was no difference between the returned income and the finally assessed income. Admittedly, there was no loss of revenue to the Government. Under section 271B the Assessing Officer is vested with discretion either to impose or not to impose penalty depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. No…

Shreenathji Realty, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed

ITA 2221/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44Section 44A

Jagjit Singh Arora, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 15/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 194

…ee from the different parties and paid by it to the individual truck owner was not the assessees own sales. It was the commission income alone that could partake the character of the assessees turnover. 07. In the case of ITO vs. Bindra Ban Bansi Lail (2001) 78 ITD 228 (Asr), it is held that the CBDT, in its Circular No. 452, dated 17-3-1986, has clarified that in the case of agent, whose position was similar to that of Kuchha Arhatia, the turnover is only the commission and will not include the sales on behalf of the principals. From the facts of the instant case, it was clear that the assessee was a transport…

Ravi M. Arabatti, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 8814/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 8814/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Karadam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 8814/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ravi M. Arabatti Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), बनाम/ 1303/1304, ‘A’ Wing, Neelkanth Thane. Heights, Pokhran No.2, Vs. Thane (W). "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ADKPA 8573F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Jitendra Singh अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A.K. Karadam ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17/12/2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04/03/2016 Date of Pronouncemen…