Staywell Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

283 ITR 92High Court2006#20300 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing Staywell Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Sushila Devi, Sh 8A, Village Daulatpura, Post Katrathal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sushila Devi SH 8A, Village Daulapura Post Katrathal, Sikar cuke Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPD 6837 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of H

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.” Staywell Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 283 ITR 92 (MP) (HC) The held part of the decision reads as under:- The use of expression ‘may’ in s. 271B confers discretion on the AO to impose penalty for the breach of s. 44AB. This, therefore, contemplates as to whether explanation sought from assessee in not complying with the requirement of s. 44AB is to be accepted or not by AO. In other words, thoug…

P. Kalaiselvi, Polur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…d and therefore ought to have desisted from levying the penalty. ITO vs Vinedale Distillaries (P) Ltd. 43 ITD 703 (Hyd); Indian handloom textiles vs ITO 68 ITD 560 (Cal) 2.9 The AO ought to have followed the following cases - Staywell Hotels p ltd. vs CIT 283 ITR 92 (MP) (delay of 2 months); Saraswathi electronics vs ITO 292 ITR 411 (KAR) (delay of 1 year) -ACIT vs Kamadhenu food products 70 TTJ 720 (Pune) (delay of 41/2 months) holding that marginal delays in filing the audit report (appellant's delay 4.75 months), should not be visited with a penalty u/s 271B. 2.10 The AO misdirected himself by ignoring th…

B Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Muralidharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…been no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to make delay in filing the audit report and in the absence of any deliberate intention on the part of the assessee as held in the case of Staywell Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 283 ITR 92 (MP) and where there is lack of deliberate delay in getting the accounts audited penalty could not be levied as held in Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Samithi Maryadit v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2008 35 ITR 89 (MP). 4. Considering the fact that the explanation regarding the circumstances in which the delay in getting the books of a…

Chack De India Forex Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chack De India Forex Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-1(4)(1), Gurudwara Lane, 30, Rishikesh. Dehradun Road, Post Rishikesh, Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcc2707N

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chatterjee, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 256Section 271BSection 44A

…itted / uploaded by 12 o’clock night of 30 September, 2013. If TAR is submitted / uploaded on the very next day or next few days, penalty is not leviable since it will show the bonafide conduct of the assessee. In the case of Stay well Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 92 (MP), Hon’ble High Court held that where there was a short delay and the assessee offered explanation for the delay, penalty u/s. 27IB cannot be levied. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramakrishna Stores 253 ITR 175 (Cal.) held that where there is a marginal delay in filing TAR (in this case, a delay of PA months was held to be…