Ram Prakash C Puri v. ACIT

77 ITD 210Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#14418 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44AASection 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)section 44aasection 275section 271bsection 44asection 271asection 271(1)(b)section 44absection 44section 274

Judgments citing Ram Prakash C Puri v. ACIT

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Manphool Singh Income Tax Officer, Vs. C-142, Mangal Marg, Bapu Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEPPS 4925 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dev Arora (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 147/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that now as the assessee had been penalized for failure on his part to maintain books of account, therefore, the A.O was divested from further saddling him…

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 145/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that now as the assessee had been penalized for failure on his part to maintain books of account, therefore, the A.O was divested from further saddling him…

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All). Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the order of the ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune in the case of Ram Prakash C Puri Vs. ACIT (2001) 77 ITD 210 (Pune) and order of the ITAT, “E” Bench, Delhi in the case of Mahit Garg Vs. ITO, ITA No.3355/Del/2017 dated 23.06.2020. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. AR that now as the assessee had been penalized for failure on his part to maintain books of account, therefore, the A.O was divested from further saddling him…

Ekam Wines, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 161/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ekam Wines Vs. Income Tax Officer, Street No. 1, Ganesh Nagar, Ward-1(1), Bathinda Bathinda 151 001, Punjab [PAN: AAFFE 7403A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR Respondent by: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the…

Yogendra Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 wherein similar view has been affirmed. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Ram Prakash C. Puri Vs. ACIT 77 ITD 210 wherein by following the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High court in the case Surajmal Parasram Todi Vs. CIT (supra), the penalty levied U/s 271B was deleted. The ld AR distinguished the case law relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of S.J. Agarwal & Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 114 ITD 27 (Pune). 3. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the o…

Abu Mansur Ali, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 93/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Abu Mansur Ali -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xviii, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ajwpa 0693 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Of C.I.T.(A)-Central-Ii, Kolkata Relating To Ay 2009-10. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) Whereby The Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing The Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

…u/s 271B of the Act., The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs CIT, 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati): CIT vs. S. K. Gupta & Co., 322 ITR 86 (All); K.V.ramchandran vs. DCIT, 32 Taxmann.com 200 (Cochin) and Ram Prakash Puri vs. ACIT, 77 ITD 210(Pune). It is further submitted by the Ld. A.R. that since the appellant had only worked as a middleman in arranging the purchase of land and earning commission/price difference in between, the cost of land as per agreements cannot be treated as the turnover of the appellant for the purpose of provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In view of above…