Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

259 ITR 625High Court#11912 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also reported as

185 CTR 510

Judgments citing Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

ACIT, Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. Late Baijnath Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…) held that "It is the assessing authority which has to form its own opinion and record its satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings." 40.4 Subsequently, the Allahabad High Court went into this issue in the case of Shyam Biri Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (259 ITR 625; 2002). After considering the above Calcutta High Court decision and the Delhi High Court decision, it has held that "With profound respect to the Delhi High Court decision, we are unable to agree.... We are, therefore, of the opinion that although the Assessing Officer must have satisfaction as required under section 273 of the Act, it is not ne…

Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 193/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA (e) No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All. H.C.). (f) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (g) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad. (h) “Arcotech”, (Del) (H.C.). (i) “B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros.”, 20 Taxman 215 (j) (Mad). “Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. (k) DCIT” ITA No.6617/Mum/2014. The case of “S.V. Angidi Chettiar” (supra) is not applicable to 10.…

Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी अ"नल चतुव"द", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.416/PUN/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No. : 84, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001 PAN : AABCA1850C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Sh…

Smt. Sarla Devi, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…hd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. ITA No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl”, ITA No.480/2012, Delhi High (g) Court. “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All). (h) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (i) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad. (j) “CIT vs. Arcotech Ltd.” (Formerly SKS Ltd. ITA No.71/2013, (k) dated 12.09.2013. Delhi (H.C.). “B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros.”, 20 Taxman 215 (Mad). (l) I.T.A No. 70/Agra/2017 10 “Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT” ITA (m)…

Ms/ Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries, Agra vs. The A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Agra

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

ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…(SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA (e) No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “ShyamBiri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All. H.C.). (f) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (g) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad. (h) “Arcotech”, (Del) (H.C.). (i) “B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros.”, 20 Taxman 215 (j) (Mad). “Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. (k) DCIT” ITA No.6617/Mum/2014. The case of “S.V. AngidiChettiar” (supra) is not applicable to 10. t…

Sh. Sachin Arora, Mathura vs. I.T.O.-3(4), Mathura

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…hd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. ITA No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl”, ITA No.480/2012, Delhi High (g) Court. “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All). (h) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (i) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad. (j) “CIT vs. Arcotech Ltd.” (Formerly SKS Ltd. ITA No.71/2013, (k) dated 12.09.2013. Delhi (H.C.). “B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros.”, 20 Taxman 215 (Mad). (l) “Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT” ITA (m) No.6617/Mum/2014. “ACIT vs…

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2194/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n of the AO is necessary before issue of a notice, it is not necessary to record such satisfaction in writing in every case 4. Recently, the same issue came up for the consideration of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 185 CTR 510. The satisfaction of the AO was not recorded in the regular assessment before initiation of the penalty proceedings. While disagreeing with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi HC, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that although the AO must have satisfaction as required u/s.273 of the Act, it was not necessary for him to record that satisfaction in writ…

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2193/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n of the AO is necessary before issue of a notice, it is not necessary to record such satisfaction in writing in every case 4. Recently, the same issue came up for the consideration of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 185 CTR 510. The satisfaction of the AO was not recorded in the regular assessment before initiation of the penalty proceedings. While disagreeing with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi HC, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that although the AO must have satisfaction as required u/s.273 of the Act, it was not necessary for him to record that satisfaction in writ…

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2192/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n of the AO is necessary before issue of a notice, it is not necessary to record such satisfaction in writing in every case 4. Recently, the same issue came up for the consideration of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 185 CTR 510. The satisfaction of the AO was not recorded in the regular assessment before initiation of the penalty proceedings. While disagreeing with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi HC, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that although the AO must have satisfaction as required u/s.273 of the Act, it was not necessary for him to record that satisfaction in writ…

Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (259 ITR 625) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax