Shrepak Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

60 TTJ 199Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25357 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269sdomestic companysection 273section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 48section 269child

Judgments citing Shrepak Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…instead of handing over it to the son. The AO did not accept assessee's explanation and imposed penalty under s. 27ID of the Act. 25. Based on above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. 26. In the case of Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (60 TTJ 199) the brief facts were that during the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had received cash deposits of Rs. 2,17,000 as below : Name of the depositor Date of deposit Mode of Deposit & the amount M/s Arvind Panalal 11-12-1990 In cash Rs. Investment (P) Ltd. 15,000 -do- 17-12-1990 In cash Rs. 30,000 -do- 8-12-1990 In cash Rs. 1,72…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…cision of Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Chandra Cement Ltd., 68 TTJ 35 (Jp), decision of Tribunal Indore Bench in the case of Mohan Page 37 of 37 Karkare (51 TTJ 599 (Indore), decision of Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shrepak Enterprises , 60 TTJ 199 (Ahd) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd., 83 ITR 26 (SC), we are of the opinion that the assessee's case is fully covered by the proposition of law, laid down in the aforesaid decisions and consequently, following these decisions, cancel the penalty. 39. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…t instead of handing over it to the son. The AO did not accept assessee's explanation and imposed penalty under s. 27ID of the Act. Based on above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deleted the 25. penalty. In the case of Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (60 TTJ 199) the 26. brief facts were that during the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had received cash deposits of Rs. 2,17,000 as below : Name of the depositor Date of deposit Mode of Deposit & the amount Page 17 of 37 M/s Arvind Panalal 11-12-1990 In cash Rs. Investment (P) Ltd. 15,000 -do- 17-12-1990 In cash Rs. 30,000 -do- 8-12-19…

Shrepak Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (60 TTJ 199) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax