Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tea King on 27 October, 1999

The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Kamlesh R. Agarwal (Huf) on 23 December, 2005

5. Now coming to the facts in the afore-cited case of CIT v. Tea King (supra). A survey operation was carried out by the department at the premises of assessee on 1st and 2nd March, 1990. The returns for AY 1985-86 to 89-90 were filed simultaneously on 10th October, 1990, Since the books of accounts were not audited, the AO levied penalty for all the years. Penalty for AY 1985-86 was upheld by the CIT(A) and penalty for other years was deleted on the ground that since the books of accounts for preceding year was not ready, there was a reasonable cause which prevented assessee to get its accounts audited for subsequent years. The order of CITA) was upheld by this Tribunal. Their Lordships of Jurisdictional High Court found that there was nothing wrong in the order of Tribunal vide which deletion of penalty was upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr.Mukesh Bansal, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 12 October, 2012

The judgement cited by the Ld. A.R. rendered in the case of CIT vs Tea King (supra) is of no help in the present case because the facts are different. In that case, penalty in dispute was imposed by the A.O. u/s 271B read with section 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the penalty was deleted in that case on this basis that when the penalty is confirmed for the assessment year 1985-86, the penalty cannot be confirmed for the subsequent years because without the opening balance, books cannot be maintained and audited in the subsequent years. In the present case, the penalty in dispute is regarding non maintenance of books of accounts as per the requirement u/s 44AA of the IT Act and hence, it cannot be said that books cannot be maintained in this year and it is a reasonable cause for non maintaining the books of accounts. We, therefore, confirm the penalty for the 1st year i.e. assessment year 2003-04.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Manoj Agrawal, Gwalior vs I.T.O.-2(2), Gwalior on 14 October, 2019

f. CIT Vs Triumph International Finance (P) Limited reported in (2012) 251 CTR (Boni) 253 (PBP ) g. In the case of CIT Vs Tea King (2000) 153 CTR 0413 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had held that where Penalty under section 271B was already levied for preceeding Assessment Year in that event for immediately succeeding year no penalty for the same default cannot be levied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parishram Transport, Navsari vs Assessee on 29 March, 2006

4. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee is only commission agent and his turnover of commission does not exceed Rs.40 lacs. Further the accounts for the Asst. Year 2004-05 were not 2 ITA No.1223/Ahd/2010 Asst. Year2005-06 finalized in time and, therefore, accounts for Asst. Year 2005-06 could also not be finalized and audit could be done only after accounts are final for Asst. Year 2004-05. According to the ld. AR assessee carries a bona fide belief that provisions of section 273 B would not be applicable as his commission income does not exceed Rs.40 lacs. He referred to a decision in CIT vs. Tea King (2002) 123 Taxman 162 (Guj) in which accounts not got audited in the previous year was treated as reasonable cause for not levying penalty in the relevant Asst. Year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Khubi Ram Om Prakash on 14 July, 2004

This being the factual position, we are of the view that the assessee could not get its accounts audited and obtain the report of such audit for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93 before the specified date due to circumstances beyond its control and, therefore, there was a reasonable cause for assessee's failure in complying with the requirements of Section 44AB. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Tea King (2000) 155 Taxation 25 (Guj) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports this view."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1