Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd. v. CIT

308 ITR 406High Court2009#15596 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Also reported as

61 Taxmann 133

Judgments citing Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…made the entire penalty proceedings nullity, in spite of the fact that quantum was confirmed. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents: a) Pune Bench ITAT in Chandrabhan Mugale order dated 30.10.2015 b) Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT 308 ITR 406 (Bom) c) Calcutta high court CIT Vs Ratal Lal Surekha 61 Taxmann 133 d) Apex Court’s decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 472. 4. The Ld. DR strongly countered the submissions of the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR submitted that not mentioning the exact limb under which the penalty is levied is a mere technical defect and cann…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…made the entire penalty proceedings nullity, in spite of the fact that quantum was confirmed. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents: a) Pune Bench ITAT in Chandrabhan Mugale order dated 30.10.2015 b) Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT 308 ITR 406 (Bom) c) Calcutta high court CIT Vs Ratal Lal Surekha 61 Taxmann 133 d) Apex Court’s decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 472. 4. The Ld. DR strongly countered the submissions of the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR submitted that not mentioning the exact limb under which the penalty is levied is a mere technical defect and cann…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…made the entire penalty proceedings nullity, in spite of the fact that quantum was confirmed. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents: a) Pune Bench ITAT in Chandrabhan Mugale order dated 30.10.2015 b) Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT 308 ITR 406 (Bom) c) Calcutta high court CIT Vs Ratal Lal Surekha 61 Taxmann 133 d) Apex Court’s decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 472. 4. The Ld. DR strongly countered the submissions of the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR submitted that not mentioning the exact limb under which the penalty is levied is a mere technical defect and cann…

Rapid Inexci Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6683/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…dition. Learned AR placed reliance on the following case laws to contend that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not liable under the circumstances :-  CIT Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (1084) 146 ITR 145 (Bom)  Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 406(Bom)  CIT Vs. Mrs. Baljeet Jolly (2003) 263 ITR 239 (Del) 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order passed by learned CIT(A). 5. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the contention of the assessee. First for all, the impugned advances have been received by the…

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 132 & 133/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 1990-91 M/s Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T., E-45/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-17(1), Phase-2, New Delhi – 20 New Delhi (PAN:AAACVO886C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15-02-2016 Date of pronouncement: 03-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against…

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 132/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 132 & 133/Del /2011 Assessment Year: 1990-91 M/s Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T., E-45/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-17(1), Phase-2, New Delhi – 20 New Delhi (PAN:AAACVO886C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15-02-2016 Date of pronouncement: 03-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against…

Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd. v. CIT (308 ITR 406) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax