157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd.

192 ITR 337High Court1991#3253 most cited

What is 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. authority for?

When the Assessing Officer does not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, the Commissioner cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate them, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. · 192 ITR 337 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · assessment order · Commissioner's power of revision · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · initiation of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270ASection 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneousrevision under section 263penalty under section 270aunder-reporting of incomepenalty u/s 270asection 271aacsection 271aasection 271asection 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd.

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 221/JPR/2022[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 220/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…T v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalara…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, 005, Village Beedmandi, Nayagaon, Ramganjmandi, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A..)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…rt in CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D’Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case. 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D’Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case. 19 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantil…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balar…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…t in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D' Costa's case (supra). 14. However, Honourable Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same Honourable High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…(Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Karttilal Jam (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addi. CWT vs. Nathoolal Bala…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…(Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Karttilal Jam (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addi. CWT vs. Nathoolal Bala…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…(Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Karttilal Jam (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addi. CWT vs. Nathoolal Bala…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…oposition has been laid down: CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (201 ITR 289 (Delhi) CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45(Delhi) CiT v. Keshrimal Parsmal (157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan) Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati) CIT v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337(Calcutta). CIT v. Subhash kumar Jain (335 ITR 364(Punjab & Haryana) 4.1 Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, 142 ITR 606, in which it was observed that though it was true that the satisfaction of the ITO, before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, was the con…