Raj Kumar Chaurasia v. CIT

288 ITR 329High Court2007#17530 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Raj Kumar Chaurasia v. CIT

Shri Hajaram P. Purohit, Mumbau vs. ACIT Cent Cir-36, Mumbai

In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 7634/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos.7634 & 7635/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…h material is placed before the A.O. in penalty proceedings, findings recorded in quantum appeal cannot be brushed aside but these are relevant to levy of penalty by relying on findings recorded in assessment/ appellate proceedings [Raj Kumar Chaurasia v. CIT 288 ITR 329 (All.) and CIT v. Rattan Singh Grewal 304 ITR 75 (P&H)]. As the appellant in the present case has not led any fresh evidence to disprove the case of the A.O. at the penalty stage, the findings recorded at the time of assessment as well as in quantum appeal would be relevant to the levy of penalty. It deserves to be noted that I have already dism…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Global Bradcasting Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-16(1) M/S Utv Global Broadcasting Ltd. Room No. 439, (Now Known As M/S Disney Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Entertainment (India) Ltd. 7Th Floor, M.K. Marg Mumbai- Building No. 11, Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacu9044R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…urate particular has been furnished in the return of income or that there is any concealment of income in the return of income, without appreciating that the instant case is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision in Raj Kishore Chaurasiya Vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 329 (All), where it has been held that where the assessment order itself contains facts, which justifies an inference of furnishing incorrect particulars of income or concealment, the penalty order is sustainable. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in directing to delete the penalty levied u/…

Usha Rani Kalidindi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 824/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…s facts, which justify inference of concealment, no further evidence or examination thereof is necessary during penalty proceedings. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chaurasia Vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 329. He accordingly, levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the said penalty, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 132 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. Since the issue in dispute and the grounds raised…

K. Bala Vishnu Raju, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 825/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…s facts, which justify inference of concealment, no further evidence or examination thereof is necessary during penalty proceedings. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chaurasia Vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 329. He accordingly, levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the said penalty, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 132 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. Since the issue in dispute and the grounds raised…

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…equirement to establish “men- M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 3(1) Indore /I.T.A. No. 713/Ind/2016/AY09-10 Page 21 of 25 s-rea” before levying penalty. We further note that the Hon`ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chaurasia v CIT (288 ITR 329(All) has held that the finding recorded in quantum of appeal are relevant for imposing penalty. Further reliance is placed on CIT v Chemiequipment Ltd (2004) 265 ITR 265 (Bom) wherein the Hon`ble High Court has held that where assessee having fully enhanced losses by not offering an amount to tax and by claiming wrong deduction under section…

Raj Kumar Chaurasia v. CIT (288 ITR 329) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax