Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

5 DTR 429High Court#2316 most cited

What is Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust · section 271(1)(b) · penalty levy jurisdiction · recording satisfaction · assessment order · Assessing Officer · 5 DTR 429 · initiation of penalty proceedings · section 142(1) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 273section 129section 273bsection 271(1)(b)search assessmentlevy of penaltysection 271reasonable causesection 274section 27section 142(1)search and seizure

Judgments citing Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

JOMON JOHN,BAZAR vs. I. T. O, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…ITA No.578/Coch/2024 Jomon John, Alappuzha IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jomon John Puthooparmapil Sea View Ward Vs. Bazar PO NFAC Alappuzha 688 012 Delhi PAN NO :ADUPJ1971C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dat…

RAMEEDEVI MULNATH SIDH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. Pan No. Adips 9728 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. PAN No. ADIPS 9728 E Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 18/04/2023 Date of hearing 24/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/06/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee…

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

…n on the AO to levy the penalty as held by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA 1.8 The appellant wishes to place reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Bench in paras 2.4 has held as under :- 2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321: (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del).…

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 159/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…at the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik ITA No.148-159/SRT/2022 A.Ys.12-13 to 18-19 Sanjaybbhai A Patel & Kashyap M Vaghasiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under :- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…at the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik ITA No.148-159/SRT/2022 A.Ys.12-13 to 18-19 Sanjaybbhai A Patel & Kashyap M Vaghasiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under :- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 157/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…at the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik ITA No.148-159/SRT/2022 A.Ys.12-13 to 18-19 Sanjaybbhai A Patel & Kashyap M Vaghasiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under :- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 156/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…at the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik ITA No.148-159/SRT/2022 A.Ys.12-13 to 18-19 Sanjaybbhai A Patel & Kashyap M Vaghasiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under :- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 155/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…at the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik ITA No.148-159/SRT/2022 A.Ys.12-13 to 18-19 Sanjaybbhai A Patel & Kashyap M Vaghasiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under :- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1379/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1378/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1377/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1376/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

TATER REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1375/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.2530/Del/2018 dated 16/02/2021. Similar ratio was also laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT reported in 5 DTR 429; Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016; Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT in ITA No.5737/Del/2015 dated 20/09/2017. 3.1. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.…

ASHA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/JPR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 236/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 ITO, cuke Asha Yadav Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(3), Jaipur-302021. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMPY 4719 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra…

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1280/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…“5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- "2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1279/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…“5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- "2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

DLF COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2530/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…nd that the defaults earlier committed should be treated as having been ignored by the Assessing Officer. For this contention he relied on orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal), Globus Infocom Limited vs. DCIT (order dated 29.06.2016 in ITA No. 738/Del./2014 for AY 2010-11), Carreen Builders & Developers vs. DCIT (order dated 20.09.2017 in ITA No. 5737/Del/2015 for for AY 2012-13). In these orders, it was held by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi that when the order is finally passed u/s 143(3) of IT…

M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5915/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…: “5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5914/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…: “5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3