site stats

Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

WebSuresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) He also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the following cases: IT Appeal No. 3480 (Bang.) of 2004 in the case of V. Krishnamurty v. Income Tax Officer dated 31-3-2005, IT Appeal No. 178 (Panaji) of 2002 in the case of Asstt. CIT v. G.L. Acharya dated 1-4-2005. WebAfter going through the letter of the ITO, the CIT (Appeals) held that Lotus Mills Ltd. would get a heavy refund from the Income Tax Department and it would be in a position to …

Income Tax Officer vs Babitaben Rameshbhai Patel on 14 March, …

WebMar 18, 2024 · In Suresh Chandra Mittal's case (supra) the Court came out with an epoch-making ruling, viz., if an assessee files a revised … WebIn case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the assessee has offered the additional income to buy peace of mind … crystalline acrylic laminates https://talonsecuritysolutionsllc.com

cit vs suresh chandra mittal 251 itr 9 income tax income tax

Webvi. CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal(2000) 241 ITR 124 (MP) 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s Etco Group as well as at the Web1) "CIT v Suraj Bhan 159 Taxman 26 P & H - penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. In his case, the 7 ITA Nos. 858 to 863/Mds/2011assessee had filed the revised return showing higher income and gave an WebJul 26, 2001 · CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal – Supreme Court of India TG Team Income Tax - Judiciary Download PDF 26 Jul 2001 9,245 Views 0 comment Case Law Details … crystalline aeon sword

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when returned income accepted filed in ...

Category:Rishi R Oswal (Huf), Mumbai vs Assessee on 24 October, 2007

Tags:Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Penalty not justified on voluntary surrender of …

WebApr 24, 2015 · In case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the assessee has offered the additional income to buy peace of … WebApr 15, 2012 · Contrast with Suresh Chandra Mittal 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed in 251 ITR 9 (SC) & CIT vs. Rajiv Garg 313 ITR 256 (P&H) & SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 176 …

Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Did you know?

WebIn CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the 8 I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 ... WebIn case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the assessee has offered the additional income to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act cannot be levied.

WebNov 23, 2016 · The assessee also relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [251 ITR 9]. In the case relied up on by the assessee, the assessee has revised return of income under section 148 of the Act showing more income. Thereafter orders of the :: 7 :: ITA No.1450/Mds/2016 reassessment were … WebMay 3, 2024 · ORIGINAL PDF. Manjit Singh v. Cit. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT (A)10, New Delhi, Dated 26.07.2024, for the …

WebThe assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2002-03 against the order of learned CIT(Appeals) dated 17th January, 2011 disputing the confirmation of penalty of Rs.2,91,552/- levied u/s 271(1)(c). ... The Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 deleted the ... WebThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chand Mittal, 251 ITR 9 (SC) held that in a case where the assessee originally filed return showing meager income, but after action u/s.132 in response to notice u/s.148, the assessee filed revised return showing higher income and the eventual assessments were based on such return, penalty …

WebIndian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WebSir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) Even after proviso to explanation 1, voluntary surrender to buy peace penalty u/ s 271 (1) (c) can not be levied. Ramnath Jaganath vs. State of Maharashtra(1984) 57 STC 46,51 (Bom), dwp gender recognition teamWebMay 2, 2015 · In case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the assessee has offered the additional income to buy peace of … dwp gants hillWeb1 day ago · However, the AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income and finally levied the penalty which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). 10.1 It is a settled position of law that the penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceedings. dwp glasgow atlantic quayWebMar 12, 2009 · Suresh Chandra Mittal, [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433, has upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Suresh … dwp generalist pay scalesWebC.R. Nagappa vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 September, 1968. ... vs Asstt. Cit on 21 May, 2004. Warning on Translation. User Queries. income tax returns . tax extender. … dwp gateway accountWebAug 12, 2024 · The assessee has relied on the following judgment. “Sale consideration offered for tax on receipt of notice u/s. 148 to buy peace of mind. Not proved by department that explanation of assessee was not bona fide Suresh Chandra Mittal relied SLP of dept dismissed In the case of CIT V/s. 1. Rajiv Garg 2. Siya Ram Garg 3. Sanjay Garg 4. dwp gateway benefitWebJul 6, 2016 · The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in fact confirmed the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal in which Hon'ble High Court had held that in this case the surrender was made after persistent queries made by the AO. Still, it was held by the Court that no penalty should be leived. crystalline 90