Lakshminarayana v. ITO

41 ITR 465Reported decision2015#11636 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 111ASection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 80ICSection 80IC(2)(a)(ii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

total incomebusiness

Judgments citing Lakshminarayana v. ITO

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…ld be imposed up on the assessee. The penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings of assessment, it is independent and separate. (ii) H. Lakshminarayana vs. ITO (2015) 41 ITR 465 order dated 03.07.2015. (ITAT, Bengaluru) "It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. In our view, the aforesaid defect cannot be said to be curable u/s.292BB of the Act, a…

Vishwas Kohli, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 59(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7259/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vishwas Kohli, Vs. Ito, Ward 59(5), G-273, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar New Delhi New Delhi- Pin: 1100 92 Pan No. Anqpk5472M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 68

…jected as afterthought. 14. Meaning thereby that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not proved. In this regard the Ld. CIT (A) has been justified in relying on Technical Glass Ind. Vs. CIT 281 ITR 61; Chowkchand Balabux vs. CIT (Assam) 41 ITR 465; Blowell Auto (P) Ltd. vs. ACTT (PH)11 DTR 91; and Munilal Ramdayal vs. ITO & Ors. (Ori) 76 ITR 151. 14 15. In view of the above discussion and factual matrix of the case, we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.69,20,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. In…

M/S. Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Haridwar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

ITA 2593/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali &
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…stence of the sundry creditors are not prove, therefore, the genuineness of the affidavits are also not proved. The above view finds support from the decisions in the case of Technical Glass Industries v/s CIT(All) 281 ITR 61, Chowkchand Balabux v/s CIT(Assam)41 ITR 465, Munilal Ramdayal v/s ITO & ors. (Ori) 76 ITR 151. From the above it is evident that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the milk purchases from the above vendors. In view of the above, AO is fully justified in disallowing 20% of the purchase of milk i.e. of Rs 60,84,325/-. Therefore the disallowance made by the AO is sustained. The ap…

Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271Section 271ASection 271aSection 274

…ng Factory 259 ITR 565. It is submitted that this decision has been followed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Mradula Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 176/1P/2016 dated 16.09.2016. Besides ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of H. Laxmi Narayan (2015) 41 ITR 465 and Mumbai ITAT Bench in the case of Sandhya Gadkari Sharma vs. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 129 have also followed the decision. All these decision imposed a duty upon the Learned Assessing Officer for following the due procedure in the course of levy of penalty by issuing correct and relevant show cause notices. These decisions have laid importance to th…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

…ng Factory 259 ITR 565. It is submitted that this decision has been followed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Mradula Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 176/JP/2016 dated 16.09.2016. Besides ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of H. Laxmi Narayan (2015) 41 ITR 465 and Mumbai ITAT Bench in the case of Sandhya Gadkari Sharma vs. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 129 have also followed the decision. All these decision imposed a duty upon the Learned Assessing Officer for following the due procedure in the course of levy of penalty by issuing correct 20 Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur and relevant show cause not…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…of penalty proceedings is vitiated. Accordingly the levy of penalty was not justified. On similar grounds the Hon'ble ITAT Banglore following the decision of Karanataka High Court cited above as deleted penalty in the case of H. Lakshminarayana vs. ITO (2015) 41 ITR 465 order dated 03.07.2015. The Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the penalty on the sole ground that the show cause notice was defective as it did not spell out 5 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO specifically the ground on which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The Hon'ble Tribunal further held that such defect was not curable u/s 292BB. I…

Goyal Salt Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no

ITA 1354/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 174Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…case of the assessee, the AO has not done so. In view of this the very initiation of penalty proceedings is vitiated. Accordingly, the levy of penalty was not justified. On the similar ground, ITAT Banglore Bench in the case of H Lakshminarayna vs ITO (2015) 41 ITR 465, deleted the penalty on the sole ground that the show cause notice was defective as it did not spell out specifically the ground on which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The ITAT Bangalore Bench further held that such defect was not curable u/s 292BB. In view of these facts, the penalty in the case of the assessee also 7 M/s.Goyal Salt Pvt…

Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur vs. M/S Austee Hydro Power & Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 837/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

…tention of the assessee was that if no effort is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit, the same has to be accepted as true. The assessee has cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Chowkchand Balabux Vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 465 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 in this regard. 28 & A.Y.2012-13 30. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals). 31. We have considered the rival contentions and find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel for assessee. The assessee’…

M/S Austees Hydro Power & Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 729/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

…tention of the assessee was that if no effort is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit, the same has to be accepted as true. The assessee has cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Chowkchand Balabux Vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 465 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 in this regard. 28 & A.Y.2012-13 30. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals). 31. We have considered the rival contentions and find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel for assessee. The assessee’…

Lakshminarayana v. ITO (41 ITR 465) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax