Metal Stores v. CIT 9

186 ITR 612High Court#12315 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing Metal Stores v. CIT 9

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/CHNY/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 871/CHNY/2014[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 869/CHNY/2014[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 868/CHNY/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/CHNY/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. (1989) 178 ITR 451 and on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Metal Stores v. CIT 91990) 186 ITR 612. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal (1983) 141 ITR 32. 4. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessees, further submitted that for all the assessment years, except assessment for assessment year 2001-02, the assessments were completed on 06.03.2006 in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow

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

ITA 397/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv
Section 142Section 260ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 5

…n the case of CIT Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Ltd. 178 ITR 451 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that there can be a protective assessment but there cannot be any protective penalty. Similar is the view taken in the case of Metal Store Vs. CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau.). In light of the above the penalty levied u/s 27ID on the appellant firm who is acting as an agent for and on behalf of its principal M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited with reference to the amount relatable to the principal, i.e. a sum of Rs.259,35,24,621/- is cancelled.” 9. The ld CIT(A) has deleted the penalty wherein he has…

Y.P. Punj Family Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7614/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri A K Kardam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 64

…ome or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. Before us, the Ld. Counsel has cited following decision in support of the contention no penalty can be levied on protective basis :- CIT v Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451(Cal) Metal Stores vs CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau) ITO vs Miss Vasudha Bajoria 40 ITD 414(ITAT-Kol) CIT v Smt. Durgawati Singh 234 ITR 249(All) Whereas, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 4. On the perusal of the impugned order and facts and materials on record, we find that both the authorities have discussed in detail, the colourable device but failed to underst…

Metal Stores v. CIT 9 (186 ITR 612) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax