CIT v. Hissaria Brothers

386 ITR 719Supreme Court of India2016#1673 most cited

What is CIT v. Hissaria Brothers authority for?

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hissaria Brothers SC · penalty order limitation period · Section 275(1)(c) · Section 271D penalty · Section 271E penalty · date of assessment order for penalty · limitation for penalty under 269SS · limitation for penalty under 269T · Supreme Court penalty limitation · income tax penalty time limit

Also reported as

74 Taxmann.com 22

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 245hsection 275section 269tsection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 261revision under section 263section 129

Judgments citing CIT v. Hissaria Brothers

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3107 & 3108/Del/2019 Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s. Delhi State Taxi Vs. JCIT, Operators’s Co-operative Thrift Range-60, Credit & Services Society Ltd., New Delhi. C-19, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar Complex, New Delhi – 110 091. PAN AAAAD0030A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv., Ms. Pushpa Sharma, Adv., Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. and Shri Sandeip S Nagar, CA Department by : Shri T. James Singson, CI…

Siddha Chetty Natarajan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

ITA 565/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271D

…nsidering the ] transaction and the parties involved in the to the transaction. The appellant objects to the entire levy of penalty including the sum determined in the order. 9. Penalty proceedings invoked after six months from intimation date are not valid (386 ITR 719 SC). 10. Commissioner (Appeals ought to have recognized that the Registrar documents registered the sale deed reflecting cash transaction. 11. While there was no loss to Revenue due to the bonafide transaction, a penalty is not leviable, just because it is lawful to do so. 12. The appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds of appeal…

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

….). c) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhani v. ITO, reported in (2017) 395 ITR 497(Guj.). d) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Brothers, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 719(SC). e) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC). ITA No.46/Alld./2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT, Varanasi f) Appellate Order dated 29.02.2016 passed by ITAT, Chandigarh Bench SMC, in the case of Chawl…

Ram Singh, Karnal vs. Addi. CIT Range, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1457/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Ram Singh, Vs. Addl. CIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Range Karnal Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AZQPS7536M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Commissio…

Raman Chaudhary, Karnal vs. Addi. CIT Spl. Range, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Raman Chaudhary, Vs. ACIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Special Range, Urban Estate, Karnal, Karnal Haryana PAN :AFOPC1631G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned…

Shri Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. C.I.T., Range-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 2429/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

…ted by the assessee, however, we are unable to agree with the contention of the assessee that the order u/s 271D of the Act is barred by limitation. The case laws cited by the assessee are distinguishable on facts, since in the case of CIT v Hissaria Brothers 386 ITR 719 (Supreme Court), CIT v Hissaria Brothers 291 ITR 244 (Raj) and Hissaria Brothers v JCIT 73 TTJ 1 (Jodhpur), on which I.T.A No. 2429/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 6 Shri Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Dodiya vs. Jt. CIT reliance has been placed by the assessee, the assessing officer had initiated proceedings under section 271D of the Act during the course…

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

…imitation under section 275(1)(c) applies to such proceedings, we hold in favour of the respondent.” 6. Subsequently, the matter came into the consideration of Hon’ble Supreme Court who dismissed the appeal of the revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros. 386 ITR 719. No doubt, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the DR has strongly placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Grhalakshmi Vision Vs. ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 100 in which it is specifically held that the penalty is liable to be reckoned from the notice issued by ACIT but in the instant case also if the period be reckoned from the…

Amd Research & Development Center India Private Limited(Now Known As Amd India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 66/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…nd mentioned that the order passed is liable to be quashed. : *CIT vs. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P.Ltd.(2011)(ITA No.511/2011) (Delhi HC) [245 CTR 312) *CIT, Bikaner v. Hissaria Brothers (22 August 2016[Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2008] (Supreme Court) [386 ITR 719J * Rayala Corporation P.Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007)288 ITR452 (Madras HC) ~*ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (2015)(I.T.A.No.3709/Del/2008)(Delhi ITAT) 11.1 The submissions of the appellant were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for a factual report. The Assessing Officer vide letter dt. 04.05.2017 submitted that the provisi…

Amd Research & Development Center India Private Limited(Now Known As Amd India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 65/HYD/2018[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…nd mentioned that the order passed is liable to be quashed. : *CIT vs. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P.Ltd.(2011)(ITA No.511/2011) (Delhi HC) [245 CTR 312) *CIT, Bikaner v. Hissaria Brothers (22 August 2016[Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2008] (Supreme Court) [386 ITR 719J * Rayala Corporation P.Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007)288 ITR452 (Madras HC) ~*ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (2015)(I.T.A.No.3709/Del/2008)(Delhi ITAT) 11.1 The submissions of the appellant were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for a factual report. The Assessing Officer vide letter dt. 04.05.2017 submitted that the provisi…

Amd Research & Development Center India Private Limited(Now Known As Amd India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 64/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…nd mentioned that the order passed is liable to be quashed. : *CIT vs. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P.Ltd.(2011)(ITA No.511/2011) (Delhi HC) [245 CTR 312) *CIT, Bikaner v. Hissaria Brothers (22 August 2016[Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2008] (Supreme Court) [386 ITR 719J * Rayala Corporation P.Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007)288 ITR452 (Madras HC) ~*ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (2015)(I.T.A.No.3709/Del/2008)(Delhi ITAT) 11.1 The submissions of the appellant were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for a factual report. The Assessing Officer vide letter dt. 04.05.2017 submitted that the provisi…

Amd Research & Development Center India Private Limited(Now Known As Amd India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 63/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…nd mentioned that the order passed is liable to be quashed. : *CIT vs. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P.Ltd.(2011)(ITA No.511/2011) (Delhi HC) [245 CTR 312) *CIT, Bikaner v. Hissaria Brothers (22 August 2016[Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2008] (Supreme Court) [386 ITR 719J * Rayala Corporation P.Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007)288 ITR452 (Madras HC) ~*ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (2015)(I.T.A.No.3709/Del/2008)(Delhi ITAT) 11.1 The submissions of the appellant were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for a factual report. The Assessing Officer vide letter dt. 04.05.2017 submitted that the provisi…

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

…d on the ground that limitation under section 275(1)(c) applies to such proceedings, we hold in favour of the respondent.” Subsequently, this decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court was affirmed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2008 (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “1. On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefore, such penalty could not have been imposed. Sin…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise.” 12. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC) held dismissing the appeal: “On perusing the judgment of the High Court, it is found that penalty imposed on the respondent herein was also set aside on the ground that the provisions ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 15 of Section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefor…

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

…TR 640 (Del) , Commissinoer of 12 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Income Tax (Central) - 2 V/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) , the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Hissaria Brothers, (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC), and the decision of Delhi High court in the case of CIT V/s. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). 10. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jitendra Singh Rathore, 2013 (352) ITR 327 (Raj), Grihalakshmi Vision V/s. The Additional Commissioner of 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

…TR 640 (Del) , Commissinoer of 12 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Income Tax (Central) - 2 V/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) , the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Hissaria Brothers, (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC), and the decision of Delhi High court in the case of CIT V/s. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). 10. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jitendra Singh Rathore, 2013 (352) ITR 327 (Raj), Grihalakshmi Vision V/s. The Additional Commissioner of I…