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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Hissaria Bros.?

132 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hissaria Bros. (291 ITR 244), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hissaria Bros. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271D, Section 269SS, Section 269T, Section 271E, Section 275(1)(c), Section 153A.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros. (291 ITR 244)

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

…The contention of the assessee is that the order passed by Addl. CIT for levy the penalty is barred by limitation. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Brothers 291 ITR 244 (Raj). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue of limitation. Anyhow, the penalty was initiated on 20.03.2013 by issuance of notice by AO. Thereafter, the AO brought this fact to the notice of Addl. CIT on 20.02.2014. The notice was issued on 27.02.2014 b…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Section 271D

…barred by limitation and accordingly the said penalty orders are quashed.” 32.1. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Brothers M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd., (2007) 291 ITR 244, wherein Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court has considered the issue of levy of penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act and finally held as under: “27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2637/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2636/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2635/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Cgangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2634/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2633/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2631/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271E

…edings in the course of any proceedings under the act. But, with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271D or 271E of the Act there is no such categorical requirement expressly provided in the Act. 11. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj), the assessee's contention was that the orders of penalty U/s.271D & E of the Act passed in each case for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 were barred by time in terms of Section 275(1)(c) was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found on the question of…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Macrotech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1415/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DCIT, Central Corcle-7(3) Vs. M/s. Macrotech Developers Room No.655, 6th Floor Limited (Successor to Macrotech Aayakar Bhavan Construction Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Road, 216, Shah and Nahar Industrial Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Off. Dr. E.Moses Road Worli, Mumbai-400 018 PAN/GIR No.AAACM6092K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Dr. R. Madhavi Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing 01/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These…

Axis Trading Co.Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1170/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Section 271(1)(b)

…1st Sept., 2001, while the penalty was levied on 31st March, 2003. Thus, the penalty was barred by limitation. In this connection, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 211 CTR (Raj) 156 : [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj), dealing with the levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act. The Hon'ble Court pointed out that where the penalty is not linked with the assessment proceedings, the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) will be applicable. The operative portion of the order at pp. 257 and 258 is reproduced below: "We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty pr…

Axis Trading Co.Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1169/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 271(1)(b)

…1st Sept., 2001, while the penalty was levied on 31st March, 2003. Thus, the penalty was barred by limitation. In this connection, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 211 CTR (Raj) 156 : [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj), dealing with the levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act. The Hon'ble Court pointed out that where the penalty is not linked with the assessment proceedings, the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) will be applicable. The operative portion of the order at pp. 257 and 258 is reproduced below: "We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty pr…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…to be upheld and we do so. 23. In support of the ground that said order was barred by limitation of the time, the learned Senior Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hisaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244. He submitted that from the finding in para 30 of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is clear enough which establishes beyond doubt that the proceeding for levy of penalty had to be initiated before the completion of the assessment and had to be completed within the time, provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that in the i…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…to be upheld and we do so. 23. In support of the ground that said order was barred by limitation of the time, the learned Senior Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hisaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244. He submitted that from the finding in para 30 of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is clear enough which establishes beyond doubt that the proceeding for levy of penalty had to be initiated before the completion of the assessment and had to be completed within the time, provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that in the i…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vardhvinayak Township Development P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2576/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Raman (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)

Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271D

…7-M/s Vardhvinayak Township Development Pvt. Ltd. (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) rendered on 28.01.2003. (ii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan) rendered on 21.07.2006. (iii) Order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. in ITA No. 542/Mum/2007, dated 29.01.2008. (iv) Order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 10 (Cochin), dated 16.04.1993. Aggrieved, no…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Home Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10