How many judgments cite CIT v. C. R. K. Swami?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (173 ITR 510), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. C. R. K. Swami come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 270A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 132.

CIT v. C. R. K. Swami

173 ITR 510High Court1988#2596 most cited

What is CIT v. C. R. K. Swami authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax cannot use their revisionary power under Section 263 to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings, as penalty proceedings are distinct and separate from assessment proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. C. R. K. Swami · Section 263 · penalty initiation · revisionary power · assessment proceedings · penalty proceedings · Surendra Prasad Singh · Sarda Prasad Singh · 173 ITR 510

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 270A Section 271(1)(c)Section 132 Section 147 Section 271(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneous revision under section 263 penalty u/s 270a section 263(1)penalty under section 270a section 271aac section 271aab section 271aa section 271a section 270

Judgments citing CIT v. C. R. K. Swami

Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ourt in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) reported in 275 ITR 113 (All) after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Talkies reported 200 ITR 153 (Del) as well as CIT vs. C.R. K. Swami reported in 254 ITR 158 (Del) has held that non initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order amounts to error causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. The relevant extract of the order reproduced below:- “It is well established that the Assessing Officer has to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty during the course of assessment itself. If he…

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)

…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 Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalt…

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)

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)

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

…so relied upon the following decisions in which similar proposition 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…