CIT v. Braj Bhushan Cold Storage

275 ITR 360High Court2005#20263 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 275 Section 37

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 143(3)india total income interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Braj Bhushan Cold Storage

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2704/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranjali Neeraj Hardikar Vs. Pcit (Central) E/3, Vibhawari Apartments, 1901, 19Th Floor, Air Sahwas Society, Lane No.1, India Bldg, Nariman Karve Nagar – 411052. Point, Maharashtra – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aafph0320K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

…articulars of income.” 13. However even before us, there is no justification for not levying the penalty in respect of three issues. It is worth mentioning here that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Braj Bhushan Cold Storage, [2005] 275 ITR 360 and Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench ‘B’ in the case of Shabbir T. Chass Vs. ACIT, [2010] 4 ITR 297 (Trib,) had held that even dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, considering these facts, we found that Ld. Pr. CIT was rightly satisfied that the penalty order dated…

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

…armaceuticals, supra and Addl.CIT vs. Kantilal Jain reported in [1980] 125 ITR 373 (MP), Addl.CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram reported in [1980] 125 ITR 596 (MP) and Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. Braj Bhushan Cold Storage reported in [2005] 275 ITR 360 (All) 11. The opposite view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Indian Pharmaceuticals, supra wherein the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the AO has omitted to take the notice of fact attracting section 271(1)(a) of the Act, which ultimate ended in an order of…

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)

…d. AO realizing the fact that he omitted to initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act himself submitted a proposal for revision. The ld. PCIT followed the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Brij Bhushan Cold Storage 275 ITR 360 and ITAT Hyderabad in 4 ITR tribunal 297 wherein it has been held that even dropping of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (C ) is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue orders. The argument of the assessee was rejected that it is the sole authority ofthe LD AO to initiate the penalty proceedings.The ld. PCIT further stated…

Surabi Bullion, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…, with there being in fact no bar for the same in the clear language of the provision, and toward which the Ld. Pr. CIT has referred to the decisions in R.A. Himmatsingka and Co. vs. CIT [2010] 340 ITR 253 (Patna) and CIT vs. Braj Bhushan Cold Storage [2005] 275 ITR 360 (All). That the power stands exercised in respect of an order dropping penalty, i.e., where per a speaking order, as in the instant case, makes it that much more amenable to revision, as stands clarified by the Apex court in Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC). 5. Coming to the facts of the case, the assessee was during the…