CIT v. Hissaria Bros.

291 ITR 244High Court2007#773 most cited

What is CIT v. Hissaria Bros. authority for?

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

132

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hissaria Bros. · section 269SS penalty · section 269T penalty · section 271D · section 271E · section 275(1)(c) limitation · penalty proceedings independence · assessment proceedings completion · appellate quantum proceedings · Supreme Court upheld decision

Also reported as

169 Taxmann 262211 CTR 156

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269SSSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 275

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 269tsection 275section 271epenalty under section 271dsection 245hsection 261revision under section 263section 269ss

Judgments citing CIT v. Hissaria Bros.

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1165/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1164/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1060/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1057/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through…

3I Infotech Digital Bps Limited Formerly Known As 3I Infotech Bpo Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, 25(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007J 291 ITR 244/[2008J 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-so (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions throu…

3I Infotech Digital Bps Limited Formerly Known As 3I Infotech Bpo Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, 25(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5195/DEL/2024[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007J 291 ITR 244/[2008J 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-so (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions throu…

Saluja Construction Company Limited, New Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-77, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3493/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Saluja Construction Company Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 3, Munirka Marg, Range-77, New Delhi – 110 038. Delhi. Pan: Dels02044A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, Advocate; Shri Raina Majumdar, Advocate; Shri Nikhil Sharma, Advocate & Shri Tushar Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 201(1)Section 269Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 275

…ion of the 3 appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub- s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions thro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions thro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions thro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions thro…

Manish Sharma, Kota vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 619/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Sharma Vs. The JCIT, 309, Masjid Road, Keshavpura, Central Circle, Kota. Udaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AWUPS7536B Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Gopichand Saraswat, C.A. Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 25/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…ng date shall be counted from the date of sending proposal by the AO. The issue raised by the assessee is not found to be acceptable. High Court Of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hissaria Bros. [2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Rajasthan)/[2007] 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan)/[2007] 211 CTR 156 (Rajasthan) [21-07-2006] considered this issue and held as under- "19. Secondly, the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1-4-1989, section 275 was amended. Vide amendment, the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings which was generally two years from the end of financial year…

Sree Rajendra Suri Gurumandir Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

…etion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used m s. 275(l)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thapar Homer Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6423/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 269TSection 271ESection 274Section 275

…specified u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case or provision of section 275(1)(c) has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Hissaria Bros. (2007) 211 CTR Raj 156, 2007 291 ITR 244 Raj and following had been held:- "32. A close scrutiny of Section 275 which reproduced hereinabove shows L Clause 1(a) covers those cases where the penalty proceedings are in respect of a default related to principal assessment for a particular assessment year and the penalty proceedings are required to be initiated in the course of that proceed…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 547 / 2024HC Delhi06 Nov 2024
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj) in the following terms: “The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as re…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…etion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required…