MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. The show cause notice was issued belatedly, and the penalty order was passed after the prescribed time limit.
What were the facts?
During a search, the assessee admitted additional income from the sale of spent solvents and scraps. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee received cash of Rs. 2 lakhs or more in single transactions, violating Section 269ST. A penalty under Section 271DA was levied.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty order under Section 271DA was passed within the limitation period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) and whether penalty proceedings were validly initiated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax42 citing379 ITR 100 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd.27 citing147 Taxmann.com 220 · 2023 · HC · Read judgment
- 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax17 citing3 SCC 207 · 1973 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. K. Umesh Shetty11 citing170 Taxmann.com 748 · 2025 · HC
- Sri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinder (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax7 citing155 Taxmann.com 319 · 2023
- Tvi. Chandro Process v. DCIT4 citing173 Taxmann.com 976 · 2025 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.
These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, all dated 08/10/2025 for the A.Ys 2018-19 to 2021-22 respectively. Since, identical issues have been raised by the assessee in all these four appeals, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off, by this co
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, HyderabadHyderabad25 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. K. Umesh Shetty and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the seized material did not conclusively prove violations of Section 269ST, as it lacked transaction-wise and buyer-wise details. Admission of additional income alone is not sufficient for penalty ...
- Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs Addl CIT, Central Range-2, HyderabadHyderabad25 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. K. Umesh Shetty and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the time prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's contention regardin...
- Aurora Educational Society, Hyderabad vs ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), HyderabadHyderabad27 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. K. Umesh Shetty and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS was incorrect. The sale of agricultural land, being outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, could no...
- Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, HyderabadHyderabad28 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. K. Umesh Shetty and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision and the principle of favoring the assessee when two interpretations are...
- Vimal Todi, Indore vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…Indore6 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that...
More judgments on Section 271DA
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aryanparv Realty LLP, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 3 3 1, AhmedabadITA 910/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Guwahati vs Harvinder Singh Sehgal, Thangal Bazar…ITA 379/GTY/2025[2021]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026
- Harvinder Singh Sehgal, Manipur vs Central Circle-2, GuwahatiITA 374/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Yashbiz Marketing Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2364/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
