What is Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa authority for?

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (133 ITR 7), spanning 1989 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 270A.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (133 ITR 7)

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

…which reads as under:-  CIT vs KeshrimalParasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj.)  Smt. Rekha Shekawat V. Pr. CIT (2022) 36 NYPTTJ 987 (JP)  Suresh Kumar Dapkara v. PCIT (Central), Jaipur in ITA No. 141/JP/2022 / A.Y. 2018-19  Addl. CIT v. J.K. D’Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 Delhi  CIT vs Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2016) 282 CTR 205 (P & H)  CBDT Circular No. 09/DV/2016  CIT v/s C.R.K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158 ( Mad)  Shri Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya v/s The PCIT (Central), Jaipur (ITA No. 132/JP/2022 ) dated 10.08.2022 12. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition has also filed a detailed written submission which is extracted…

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

…which reads as under:-  CIT vs KeshrimalParasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj.)  Smt. Rekha Shekawat V. Pr. CIT (2022) 36 NYPTTJ 987 (JP)  Suresh Kumar Dapkara v. PCIT (Central), Jaipur in ITA No. 141/JP/2022 / A.Y. 2018-19  Addl. CIT v. J.K. D’Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 Delhi  CIT vs Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2016) 282 CTR 205 (P & H)  CBDT Circular No. 09/DV/2016  CIT v/s C.R.K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158 ( Mad)  Shri Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya v/s The PCIT (Central), Jaipur (ITA No. 132/JP/2022 ) dated 10.08.2022 12. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition has also filed a detailed written submission which is extracted…

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

…which reads as under:-  CIT vs KeshrimalParasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj.)  Smt. Rekha Shekawat V. Pr. CIT (2022) 36 NYPTTJ 987 (JP)  Suresh Kumar Dapkara v. PCIT (Central), Jaipur in ITA No. 141/JP/2022 / A.Y. 2018-19  Addl. CIT v. J.K. D’Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 Delhi  CIT vs Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2016) 282 CTR 205 (P & H)  CBDT Circular No. 09/DV/2016  CIT v/s C.R.K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158 ( Mad)  Shri Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya v/s The PCIT (Central), Jaipur (ITA No. 132/JP/2022 ) dated 10.08.2022 12. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition has also filed a detailed written submission which is extracted…

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

…isional power under s. 263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus: "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are : ‘It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings…

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

…visional power under s. 263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus: "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are : ‘It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings i…

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

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

…(c) of the Act in the assessment order is bad in law and charge for penalty cannot be modified under the revisional powers of Section 263 of the Act. For this proposition, the ld. counsel relied upon several judgments, namely, Addl. CIT vs. JK D’Costa, (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal I.T.A. No.1356 & 1358/Del/2020 4 in Sunila Asasthi vs. Pr.CIT in ITA No.496/Del/2021 order dated 7th July, 2021 and Amarjeet Dhall vs. CIT in ITA No.357/Chd/2013 order dated April 21, 2014. The Ld. counsel thus submitted that any modification in the satisfaction drawn by the Assessing Office…

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1356/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

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

…(c) of the Act in the assessment order is bad in law and charge for penalty cannot be modified under the revisional powers of Section 263 of the Act. For this proposition, the ld. counsel relied upon several judgments, namely, Addl. CIT vs. JK D’Costa, (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal I.T.A. No.1356 & 1358/Del/2020 4 in Sunila Asasthi vs. Pr.CIT in ITA No.496/Del/2021 order dated 7th July, 2021 and Amarjeet Dhall vs. CIT in ITA No.357/Chd/2013 order dated April 21, 2014. The Ld. counsel thus submitted that any modification in the satisfaction drawn by the Assessing Office…

Shri Vijay D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 2022/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ropped or the AO omitted to initiate the penalty proceedings. However, in the same vain, we notice that there are many decision in favour of the Assessee on the same subject namely CIT vs. Saraya Distillery 115 ITR 34 (All.); Addl. CIT vs. J.K, D’Costa (1981) 133 ITR 7(Del.) [ SLP dismissed against the aforesaid decision] which were referred to and followed in other decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken note of varied decisions of different High Courts while determining the issue in favour of the assessee. The propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Gurarat High Court will…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…gs—When principal Commissioner of income tax is assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 she does not have any right to direct assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)—Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 pertaining to imposition of penalty where assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect—It is not case where AO has initiated penalty proceedings and dropped it later on—AO did not initiate proceedings at first instance and PCIT has invoked his jurisdiction u/s 263—Satisfaction…

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)

…l power under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus:- "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: ITAs No. 639/Mum/2021 Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.; AY 10-11 "It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penal…

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)

…urisdiction u/s 263 of the income tax act, she does not have any right to direct the learned assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) © of the act. Honourable Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.’Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are : "It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings…

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ropped or the AO omitted to initiate the penalty proceedings. However, in the same vain, we notice that there are many decision in favour of the Assessee on the same subject namely CIT vs. Saraya Distillery 115 ITR 34 (All.); Addl. CIT vs. J.K, D’Costa (1981) 133 ITR 7(Del.) [ SLP dismissed against the aforesaid decision] which were referred to and followed in other decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken note of varied decisions of different High Courts while determining the issue in favour of the assessee. The propositions laid ITA No. 1232/Ahd/18 [Kiri Dyes and Chemical…

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)

…revisional power under s.263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: “It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s.271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings ind…

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)

…revisional power under s.263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: “It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s.271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings ind…

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)

…revisional power under s.263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: “It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s.271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings ind…

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

…ssment order particularly when assessed income remain unchanged and consequently cannot be a matter of revision by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. He in this regard referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K.D’Costa 133 ITR 7(Del), wherein CIT invoked power for the reasons that AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings during the course of assessment proceedings. It was held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. There is no identity between the two. Though it is usual for the AO to record in the assessment order that penalty proceedings are…

Collector of Central Excise vs. M/S. Kundi Engineering Works

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-000440-000441 - 1989Supreme Court19 Oct 1989

For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER

Section 128Section 130(2)

…o do a certain act and in exercise of such power he does the same, but refers to a wrong provision of the law, that would be a mere irregulari- ty and would not vitiate such act. [506G-H; 507A] Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. D’Costa, [1982] 133 ITR 7, distinguished. (5) In the order of the Collector it has been specifi- cally stated at the very outset that an appeal against the order lies to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant was misled, as the order was purported to have been passed by the Collector of Customs in exercise of his…

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

What is Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

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

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

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

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

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

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-12, New Delhi

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-12, New Delhi

Shri Vijay D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-7, Ahmedabad

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

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

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

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

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

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

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

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

Collector of Central Excise vs. M/S. Kundi Engineering Works