Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Murari Lal Agarwal, Kolkata vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(3), , Kolkata on 24 April, 2019

M/S. Varun Beverages Ltd., Uttar ... vs Ito (Tds), Noida on 5 March, 2020

(D) At the time of hearing before us, the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted, with the help of the aforesaid Paper Book (referred in foregoing paragraph (C.1) of this order] that the assessee had complied with the provision of Section 194C(7) of I.T. Act, and relevant details were on the records of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the order in the case of Dilip Kumar vs. ACIT (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

North Eastern Constructions, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), ... on 17 June, 2020

7. Moreover, the ld.AR also submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the AO proposing levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, it was brought to the notice of AO that assessee's accountant had left the service/office without finalizing the accounts for the preceding FY i.e AY 2014-15 which was, therefore, completed only on 23-03-2016 and, therefore, for the year under consideration i. e AY 2015-16, the audit could not be completed within the stipulated date and could be completed only on 28-03-2016. Thus, according to ld AR the assessee could submit the TAR on 31-03-2016 along with return of income. Therefore, according to the ld. AR there was reasonable cause for not filing the tax audit report (TAR) within the stipulated time i.e by 30-09-2015. However, according to ld. AR the AO has not given any reason for rejecting the explanation as given by the assessee and in the first appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) also has brushed aside this explanation of assesse on surmises and conjectures. According to the ld.AR, similar explanation for delay in filing TAR (Tax Audit Report) was taken up by the assessee before Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal [ Third Member ] case of ACIT Vs. Kamlesh R. Agarwal (HUF) reported in (2006) 99 ITD 27 (Ahd. TM), wherein it was held to constitute reasonable cause for the purpose of section 273B of the Act. The head note reads as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S Futurz Next Services Ltd.,, New ... on 4 January, 2022

v) Krishan Murari Lal Agarwal v. DCIT [2013] 59 SOT 136 (ITAT, Agra Bench) 28.3 He also relied on the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12.06.2017 whereby it has been clarified that the advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being in consonance with law should be upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sardar Rajdeep Singh , Kolkata vs Ito, Ward - 45(2), Kolkata on 29 April, 2019

The decision of the tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Agarwal Vs ACIT being ITA No.3389/Mum/2011 dated 10-01-2014 wherein the honourable Tribunal held that in case of non abated years, addition can only be made with respect to seized material found during the course of search. While arriving at this conclusion, the honourable tribunal has relied upon the order of the honourable tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics V Addl CIT 137 ITD 287(MUM)(SB) which has since been upheld by the honourable Bombay high court referred above. Therefore it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to make any assessment on regular basis therefore the argument of the appellant that the AO has accepted his balance sheet is not legally correct. The AO rather did not have jurisdiction to make any assessment in respect of such response. As stated above that the appellant was found in possession of Rs.15,00,000/- which was not withdrawal from his any bank account which was not recorded in his 4 I.T.A. No. 2261/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sardar Rajdeep Singh books of account and the appellant has never filed his return of income therefore it is income of the year in which it was found and it represents his undisclosed income of that year only and the AO has jurisdiction to assess the aforesaid income in the year itself only therefore keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and decision of honourable courts the action of the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rational Art & Press P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 8 ( 1) , Mumbai on 26 March, 2021

2. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee took us through the application and submitted that the order of the Tribunal suffered from certain mistakes which were apparent from record. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal while disposing off its appeal had also failed to take cognizance of a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Manek Lal Agarwal Vs. DCIT (2017) 396 ITR 721 (SC) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 401 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that though support was drawn on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements in the course of hearing of the appeal, however, the same were not considered by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal. The assessee had alongwith its miscellaneous application filed an „affidavit‟, dated 02 nd August, 2019 of Shri Pankaj R. Toprani, Advocate, the ld. Authorized Representative who had appeared in the course of the appellate proceeding before the Tribunal. On the basis of his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the mistakes in the order and also the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, had thus, rendered the order passed while disposing off the appeal as suffering from mistakes which were amenable for rectification under Sec.254(2) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next