Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Author: zynn

August undefined, 2024

WebMar 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 … 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 ...

Dr.B.Chendhilnathan, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 ...

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 … 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 how do you calculate young\u0027s modulus

Penalty not justified on voluntary surrender of …

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. WebJan 30, 2024 · CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT vs. SAS pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 0259 (Del) CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana (2013) 96 DTR 0231 (Raj) In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). WebC.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. … how do you calculate wpm

No penalty on income disclosed in revised After receipt of …

DCIT, CHENNAI v. R.Revathy, CHENNAI Income Tax Appellate …

Web1 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. WebIn Suresh Chandra Goyal (Supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed: "59. Thus, when one party gives a security to the other, implicit in the said transaction is the … pho okc 89th western menuWebIn 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 … pho old town katy menu

"Webcit vs suresh chandra mittal 251 itr 9 income tax income tax F: Deleration in Annexure v F: Applicability of GST F: Switching Over From Regular to Composition Scheme F: Input tax credit F: Transporter issuing builty required to take gst registration? F: Non Genration of E-way Bill or genration of Incorrect E-Way bill , Imp... " - Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Cit vs suresh chandra mittal

Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs Assessee on 31 March, 2016

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 ...

Did you know?

WebMay 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 … Webcit vs suresh chandra mittal 251 itr 9 income tax income tax F: Deleration in Annexure v F: Applicability of GST F: Switching Over From Regular to Composition Scheme F: Input …

WebJul 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. WebIndian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 … WebJul 20, 1999 · vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 20 July, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 241 ITR 124 MP Author: B Khan-Bench: B Khan, S Singh JUDGMENT B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference and has filed statement of the case, for opinion of this court on the following question :

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 …

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 … how do you calculate yield strengthWebApr 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 … how do you calculate yieldWebAug 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. how do you calculate your blood pressureWebSir 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), pho old town scottsdaleWebvi. 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 how do you calculate year to dateWebSuresh 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. how do you calculate your modified agiWebIn this connection, in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124, wherein it was held that " The Revenue did not at all discharge the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. pho olney md phone