citedby: 198005549

1 - 10 of 218 (1.00 seconds)

Documents citing Earthmoving Equipment Service ... vs Dcit 22( 2), Mumbai on 2 May, 2017

Anisha Estate & Finance Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Cir-8, Kolkata, Kolkata on 13 December, 2017

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Harish Kumar Huf, New Delhi vs Dcit, Circle-34(1), New Delhi on 19 August, 2019

The Mumbai Bench of ITA T has very deftly dealt with the issue in Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai) holding that 'so far as the legal grounds are concerned a perusal of the quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and finally the same was levied on the same ground .... However, in the quantum order Ld AO, after due deliberations, clearly initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings ... "

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 62 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri Ashok Kumar Mondal, vs Ito, Wd-50(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 13 December, 2017

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Vishal Barmecha, Kolkata vs Ito, Wd-31(4), Kolkata, Kolkata on 13 December, 2017

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Ila Mondal, vs Ito, Wd-50(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 13 December, 2017

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Akshay Kumar Ghosh & Sons, Kolkata vs Ito, Wd-34(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 22 December, 2017

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Dawsen Infotech (P) Ltd., , Kolkata vs Dcit, Circle - 6, Kolkata , Kolkata on 30 November, 2018

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Chowdhury , Hooghly vs Ito, Ward - 61(4) , Kolkata on 24 December, 2019

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyam Sundar Hazra, Howrah vs Ito, Ward - 33(4) , Kolkata on 10 May, 2019

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Balaji Plywood, Howrah vs Ito, Ward - 48(4), Kolkata , Kolkata on 10 May, 2019

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next