M/s Rave Entertainment (P.) Limited v. CIT

376 ITR 544High Court#17787 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing M/s Rave Entertainment (P.) Limited v. CIT

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

…re and even on rejection of a claim, no penalty was leviable. He 5 A.Y-2014-15 Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. further drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Rave Entertainment (P.) Limited vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of any finding that the claim of the deduction was bogus, the mere fact that the claim was found to be legally unacceptable did not amount to furnish inaccurate particulars / concealment of income. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the following case laws in which it had been similarly h…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…interest income is exempt from tax. Under this bona fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hen…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…interest income is exempt from tax. Under this bona fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hen…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…interest income is exempt from tax. Under this bona fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hen…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (JM) (AM) ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "C", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.:- 2239, 2240/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 DCIT, Circle 12 (1) M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd. Vs. C-23, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi - 110 048 PAN AADCR6248M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CA Date of Hearing 19/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/12/2016 O R D E R Per ANADI N MISHRA. A.M. (A)These a…

M/s Rave Entertainment (P.) Limited v. CIT (376 ITR 544) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax