Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu

23 VST 249Supreme Court of India2009#1373 most cited

What is Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu authority for?

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is not attracted merely because some items are not included in the tax return or the return contains incorrect statements, provided these transactions are fully incorporated and reflected in the assessee's account books.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sree Krishna Electricals · section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · disclosure in account books · items not included in return · incorrect statements in return · true and full disclosure · section 274 · section 276C

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 274Section 276CSection 250Section 115JBSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 270a(6)(a)section 40a(2)(a)section 115jcsection 270a(6)true and full disclosuredeletion of penaltyagency pepenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 24(a)section 92d

Judgments citing Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The ITO 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. ARUNODAYA, 10 th floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AACPP7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय…

Sri Deo Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…he Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assess…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 600/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, CITFor Respondent: Sh.S. Subramanian, CA
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. After referring to its earlier judgment in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 23 VST 249, the Apex Court found that the situation was still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. In this case also, other than the claim made by the 18 I.T.A. No.600/Mds/12 assessee with regard to five items of deduction, namely, claim of depreciation under block buildings, loss on sale of current…