Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

350 ITR 676High Court2013#20695 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M.RAMAMURTHY,HOSUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1705/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1703, 1704 & 1705/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha , JCITFor Respondent: 26.11.2019
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…mission by the learned Authorized Representative that the levy of penalty was discretionary in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 350 ITR 676 (Mad). It was a submission that as the Assessing Officer has been granted the discretion to levy penalty, the discretion should normally be in favour of the tax payer. It was also a prayer by the learned Authorized Representative that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs Commissioner of Income Tax i…

M.RAMAMURTHY,HOSUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1704/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1703, 1704 & 1705/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha , JCITFor Respondent: 26.11.2019
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…mission by the learned Authorized Representative that the levy of penalty was discretionary in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 350 ITR 676 (Mad). It was a submission that as the Assessing Officer has been granted the discretion to levy penalty, the discretion should normally be in favour of the tax payer. It was also a prayer by the learned Authorized Representative that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs Commissioner of Income Tax i…

M.RAMAMURTHY,HOSUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1703/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1703, 1704 & 1705/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha , JCITFor Respondent: 26.11.2019
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…mission by the learned Authorized Representative that the levy of penalty was discretionary in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 350 ITR 676 (Mad). It was a submission that as the Assessing Officer has been granted the discretion to levy penalty, the discretion should normally be in favour of the tax payer. It was also a prayer by the learned Authorized Representative that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs Commissioner of Income Tax i…

V.SRIKANTH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 7

ITA 794/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 794/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. V. Srikanth, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Jaiguru Traders, Ward Iv(1) (Conc) 178/1, Madurai Main Road, Tiruchirapalli. Nagamangalam, Tiruchirapalli 620 012. [Pan Aqups 6125M]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 69

…Act was discretionary and hence he could not take a presumption that absence of explanation from the assessee would automatically trigger an addition. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Midland Theatres vs. AICT, 350 ITR 676. 5. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal primarily sought for telescoping of deposits with withdrawals and this by implication meant that assessee was accepting the credits in the bank account to be his income. Further, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee could…

Mainland Theatres & A.R. Srinivasan (by LRS) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (350 ITR 676) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax