ITO v. R.K. Brothers

871 ITD 649Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#25784 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292CSection 274

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)section 292cpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 292section 29section 274concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing ITO v. R.K. Brothers

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ction 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground no. 2 of the appeal. We consider that facts of that case are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In the case referred there was specific discrepancy since the assessee had shown receipt of the amount of Rs. 19,41,233/- on which net profit of Rs. 99,960/- was shown, however, during the course of ass…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ction 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground no. 2 of the appeal. We consider that facts of that case are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In the case referred there was specific discrepancy since the assessee had shown receipt of the amount of Rs. 19,41,233/- on which net profit of Rs. 99,960/- was shown, however, during the course of ass…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ction 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are allowed. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, I direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed.” 5. The ld. DR has referred the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO vs R.K. Brothers (2003) 871 ITD 649 as mentioned by the revenue in ground no. 2 of the appeal. We consider that facts of that case are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In the case referred there was specific discrepancy since the assessee had shown receipt of the amount of Rs. 19,41,233/- on which net profit of Rs. 99,960/- was shown, however, during the course of ass…

ITO v. R.K. Brothers (871 ITD 649) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax