Subodh Kumar Bhargava v. CIT

309 ITR 31High Court2009#24398 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Subodh Kumar Bhargava v. CIT

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…o be reckoned from 01.09.2019 that would end to 29.02.2020. Therefore, penalty order passed on 05.03.2020 is barred by limitation. For this purpose reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Subodh Kumar Bharagava Vs. CIT (2009) 309 ITR 31 which was with reference to levy of penalty u/s 271B which is independent of the assessment proceeding like section 10 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT 271D which is also independent of the assessment proceedings. In this context the Hon’ble High Court in the relevant Para 11 to 14 held as under:- “11. Sec. 275(1)(c) is a residuary clause and, th…

Sh Makhan Singh Mukh Sewadar, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 40/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 40/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 139(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 271BSection 275Section 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

…for the purpose of levy of penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act. The other decisions mentioned in the written submissions, though not relied upon or referred to during hearing, have also been though perused. The decision in Subodh Kumar Bhargava v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 31 (Del) is on the meaning of the words ‘whichever period expires later’, which has no bearing or is not relevant in the present case; the penalty being 6 Makhan Singh, Mukh Sewadar v. ITO admittedly in time w.r.t. s. 275(1)(a). Again, there is no dispute that the time limitation is mandatory, as held in CIT v. Chhajer Packaging & Plastics (P.) Ltd…

ITO, Virudhunagar vs. S.Arun Kumar, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं"ीधु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shri. S. Arun Kumar, Ward 1, 243, Madasamy Koil Street, Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam 626 117. [PAN AMEPA 5855B] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. S. Vidya, CA. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/D…