S.J. Agarwal & Co. v. ITO

114 ITD 27Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#18740 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing S.J. Agarwal & Co. v. ITO

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 953/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…- was levied on the assessee. 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has since confirmed the said levy of penalty by following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of S.J. Agarwal & Co. Vs ITO (2008) 114 ITD 27 (Pune (SMC). 14. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that he is not required to obtain audit report only in respect of that business, the turnover of which crosses the limit of ITA 951 to 953/JP/2017_ 9 Roshni Devi Vs ITO the…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 952/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…- was levied on the assessee. 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has since confirmed the said levy of penalty by following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of S.J. Agarwal & Co. Vs ITO (2008) 114 ITD 27 (Pune (SMC). 14. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that he is not required to obtain audit report only in respect of that business, the turnover of which crosses the limit of ITA 951 to 953/JP/2017_ 9 Roshni Devi Vs ITO the…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 951/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…- was levied on the assessee. 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has since confirmed the said levy of penalty by following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of S.J. Agarwal & Co. Vs ITO (2008) 114 ITD 27 (Pune (SMC). 14. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that he is not required to obtain audit report only in respect of that business, the turnover of which crosses the limit of ITA 951 to 953/JP/2017_ 9 Roshni Devi Vs ITO 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

…ing 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 orders of the authorities below. 4. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty U/s 271A of the Act for the reason that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has failed to maintain his books of account…