Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 270A, Section 139, Section 271(1)(a).

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (200 ITR 153)

Q: What is ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan authority for?

The Commissioner (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act while exercising revisional powers under Section 263, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The CIT cannot pass an order under Section 263 pertaining to penalty.

Q: How many judgments cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (200 ITR 153), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…ntly followed by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Puri v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Metal Works (1985) 156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A.N. Sarvaria (1986) 161 ITR 694, Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (1993).200 ITR 153, CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [19931.201 ITTR 289 and Nihal Chand Rekvan (supra). 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986)157 ITR 484%, Gauhati High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (19881_173 ITR 610°, Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V. Linotype & Machinery Li…

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…. Dausa. 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi) (DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati), wherein it has been consistently held that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proce…

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

…ntly followed by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Puri v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Metal Works (1985) 156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A.N. Sarvaria (1986) 161 ITR 694, Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (1993).200 ITR 153, CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [19931.201 ITTR 289 and Nihal Chand Rekyan (supra). 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986)157 ITR 484%, Gauhati High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (19881_173 ITR 610°, Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V. Linotype & Machinery Lt…

Samit Ashok Soniminde, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsamit Ashok Soniminde Vs. Ito – 4(2)(1) 2302 Solitaire, Adi Room No. 1704, 17Th Shankarachary Marg Floor Air India, Bldg, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aybps9158C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 263Section 270A

…d order, assessee filed the present appeal and submitted that the PCIT had no jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the act and in this regard relied upon the decisions of CIT Vs Sudarshan talkies, [1993] 200 ITR 153 (Delhi), and in ITA No. 373/CHNY/2021, Coimbatore Vyapari Maathesh Vs ITO. 3 Samit Ashok Soniminde, Mumbai 5. Whereas, on the contrary, Ld. DR supported the orders passed by PCIT and submitted that section 263 of the Act can be invoked to direct AO for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the act, which are mandatory in nature. 6. We…

Anitha Texcot (India) Private Limited, Tiruppur vs. PCIT - 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1137 To 1139/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, 10/14, Bridge Way Colony Extension, Central Circle-1, Lakshmi Nagar, Coimbatore. Tiruppur-641 607. [Pan:Aajca 4205 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 270A

…dn’t been initiated was unsustainable by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudershan Talkies reported in ITA Nos.1137 to 1139/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) M/s. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: [1993] 200 ITR 153, wherein, it was held that failure on the part of the AO to initiate penalty proceedings would not give rise to the Ld.PCIT to pass order u/s.263 of the Act and direct initiation of such proceedings. However, the Ld.PCIT wasn’t convinced by the contention of the assessee and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case…

Anitha Texcot (India) Private Limited, Tiruppur vs. PCIT - 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are allowed

ITA 1138/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1137 To 1139/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, 10/14, Bridge Way Colony Extension, Central Circle-1, Lakshmi Nagar, Coimbatore. Tiruppur-641 607. [Pan:Aajca 4205 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 270A

…dn’t been initiated was unsustainable by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudershan Talkies reported in ITA Nos.1137 to 1139/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) M/s. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: [1993] 200 ITR 153, wherein, it was held that failure on the part of the AO to initiate penalty proceedings would not give rise to the Ld.PCIT to pass order u/s.263 of the Act and direct initiation of such proceedings. However, the Ld.PCIT wasn’t convinced by the contention of the assessee and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case…

Anitha Texcot (India) Private Limited, Tiruppur vs. PCIT - 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are allowed

ITA 1137/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1137 To 1139/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, 10/14, Bridge Way Colony Extension, Central Circle-1, Lakshmi Nagar, Coimbatore. Tiruppur-641 607. [Pan:Aajca 4205 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 270A

…dn’t been initiated was unsustainable by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudershan Talkies reported in ITA Nos.1137 to 1139/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) M/s. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: [1993] 200 ITR 153, wherein, it was held that failure on the part of the AO to initiate penalty proceedings would not give rise to the Ld.PCIT to pass order u/s.263 of the Act and direct initiation of such proceedings. However, the Ld.PCIT wasn’t convinced by the contention of the assessee and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case…

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…1985) 156 ITR 693 (Del) iii) CWT vs. A.N. Sarvaria, (1986) 161 ITR 694 (Del) iv) Surendra Prasad Singh vs. CIT, (1988) 173 ITR 510, 515 (Gauh) v) CIT vs. Linotype and Machinery Ltd., (1991) 192 ITR 337, 341- 42 (Cal) vi) Addl.CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies, (1993) 200 ITR 153, 156(Del) vii) CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies, (1993) 201 ITR 289, 291 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del) ix) CIT vs. C.R.K. Swamy, (2002) 254 ITR 158, 159 (Mad) x) State of Haryana vs. Dasunda Singh Waryam Singh (1996) 103 STC 128, 131 (Punj) following Deputy CCT vs. K.M. Thomas & Co. (1973) 31 STC 529 (Mad) xi) Bhavnagar…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are erroneous in so far…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are erroneous in so far…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are erroneous in so far…

Anjis Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh

Section 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, PCIT-5, 2nd floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5th floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, MK. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACA 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/SsnyakNavedie Revenue by : Shri Chetan Kacha, DR : Date of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee i…

Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 1070 &1071/MUM/2022 (Assessment Years 2010-11 & 11-12) Kusegoan Realty Pvt. Ltd PCIT-2 Ground Floor, D.B.House, Room No. 1920, Air India Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai- Bldg., Mumbai-400 021 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCK0621P Assessee by : Ms. Nishita Madalaywala Revenue by : Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 29.12.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are the 2 appeals filed by the…