Cit vs suresh chandra mittal
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 … WebIn 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.
Cit vs suresh chandra mittal
Did you know?
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 … 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),
Webcase of SureshChandra Mittal vs. CIT (Supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the assessment was made by the Revenue and once the assessing authorities had failed to take any objection in the matter of surrender of income made by the assessee in his revised return, the explanation that he had WebCommissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001 User Queries ambal concealment of income undisclosed income revised return 153a penalty proceedings income tax returns suresh chandra mittal m. ambalal sureshchandra suresh chandra furnishing inaccurate particulars sec 153a penalty under section 271 1 c penalty u/s …
Webproceedings are not conclusive. The decision in CIT vs. Suresh Chand Mittal(251 ITR 9) (SC) further fortifies the case of the assessee. In the present appeal, when the wrong claim/mistake was brought to the notice of the assessee, that too, during assessment proceedings itself (before passing the assessment order), the assessee paid the due taxes, 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 …
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. … five bedrooms season 2 episode 7WebThe 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 ... canine front elbow braceWebCommissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001 Section 133(6) in The Income- Tax Act, 1995 Warning on Translation User Queries long terms capital gains stock exchange revised return bogus Revise income income or capital gains sale of share penalty proceedings suresh chandra mittal section 133(6) sureshchandra suresh … five bedrooms season 2 episode 3WebApr 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 … five bedrooms season 3 downloadWebvi. 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 five bedrooms season 3 download redditWebJul 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. five bedrooms season 3 canadaWebSuresh 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. five bedroom ranch house plans