ITO v. Saphire Traders Pvt. Ltd.

66 TTJ 180Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25443 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing ITO v. Saphire Traders Pvt. Ltd.

P. Kalaiselvi, Polur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…"penalty can NOT be imposed on merely a technical mistake committed by the assessee, which had not resulted in loss of revenue - is harsh and could not be sustained in law"; Sibonarayan Patro Bros vs AO 54 TTJ 644 (Cuttack); AO vs Saphire traders pvt ltd. 66 TTJ 180 (And). 2.8 The AO ought to have understood the purpose of the audit report u/s 44AB stated in para 17.2 of CBDT circular No.387 dt.6.7.1984 [152 ITR 11 (ST)] which has been achieved when income returned was accepted and therefore ought to have desisted from levying the penalty. ITO vs Vinedale Distillaries (P) Ltd. 43 ITD 703 (Hyd); Indian hand…

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

…his regard we find support and guidance from the ITA No.2221/Ahd/2018 - Shreenathji Realty vs. DCIT ITA No.2222/Ahd/2018 - Nilkanth Developers vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 order of this tribunal in the case of ITO versus Saphire Traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 66 TTJ 180 wherein it was held as under: “Wherever the Legislature has sought to penalise a default relating to ‘delay’ in complying with a statutory provision, the quantum of penalty is invariably linked to the period of delay such as the days or months involved in the delay. On the other hand, when the default relates to ‘failure’ to comply with a statuto…

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

…his regard we find support and guidance from the ITA No.2221/Ahd/2018 - Shreenathji Realty vs. DCIT ITA No.2222/Ahd/2018 - Nilkanth Developers vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 order of this tribunal in the case of ITO versus Saphire Traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 66 TTJ 180 wherein it was held as under: “Wherever the Legislature has sought to penalise a default relating to ‘delay’ in complying with a statutory provision, the quantum of penalty is invariably linked to the period of delay such as the days or months involved in the delay. On the other hand, when the default relates to ‘failure’ to comply with a statuto…

ITO v. Saphire Traders Pvt. Ltd. (66 TTJ 180) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax