CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

379 ITR 521Supreme Court of India2015#975 most cited

What is CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills authority for?

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills · penalty initiation satisfaction · recording satisfaction assessment order · Section 271D penalty · Section 271E penalty · Section 269SS penalty · Section 269ST penalty · Assessing Officer satisfaction · validity of penalty proceedings · penalty under section 269T

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269SSSection 143(3)Section 271ESection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271esatisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271dsection 275(1)(a)section 271esection 269tsection 275(1)section 143(l)(a)section 269stsection 269sssection 275

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ed assessment order regarding the violation of the provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act by the appellant. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015)379 ITR 521 (SC), wherein it was held that no penalty u/s.271E could be levied in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order. The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in WP No.44285 of 2022 in the case of Srinivas a Reddy Reddeppagari Vs JCIT wherein the Hon'ble High Court followed…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ed assessment order regarding the violation of the provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act by the appellant. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015)379 ITR 521 (SC), wherein it was held that no penalty u/s.271E could be levied in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order. The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in WP No.44285 of 2022 in the case of Srinivas a Reddy Reddeppagari Vs JCIT wherein the Hon'ble High Court followed…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 792/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…een validly initiated for the reason that the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order regarding violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS, placing reliance on the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills(2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) and decision of High Courts and Tribunals rendered on the basis of the said Supreme Court decision, without appreciating that the decision in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills supra was rendered in the context of peculiar facts of the case, which could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appre…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 791/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…een validly initiated for the reason that the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order regarding violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS, placing reliance on the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills(2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) and decision of High Courts and Tribunals rendered on the basis of the said Supreme Court decision, without appreciating that the decision in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills supra was rendered in the context of peculiar facts of the case, which could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appre…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 790/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…een validly initiated for the reason that the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order regarding violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS, placing reliance on the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills(2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) and decision of High Courts and Tribunals rendered on the basis of the said Supreme Court decision, without appreciating that the decision in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills supra was rendered in the context of peculiar facts of the case, which could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appre…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…een validly initiated for the reason that the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order regarding violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS, placing reliance on the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills(2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) and decision of High Courts and Tribunals rendered on the basis of the said Supreme Court decision, without appreciating that the decision in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills supra was rendered in the context of peculiar facts of the case, which could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appre…

Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…n respect of cash loans each being below Rs.20,000/- and the same cannot be liable for penalty U/sec271D of the Act The Ld.AR relied on the fallowing judicial decisions as under: Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 1.CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City, [2015] 379 ITR 521 2. Cit Vs. Madhukar B. Pawar Bombay HC, [2008] 218 CTR 59. 3. Gopal Sarkar Vs. ACIT, 21 taxmann.com 132 Kal 4. DIT(E) Vs. Young Men Christian Association, 49 taxmann.com 172. 5. ITO Vs. Smt Gurmeet Kaur, 27 taxmann.com 173 Jodhpur 6. CIT Vs. Shyam Corporation, 218 Taxmann 136 Gujrat HC 7. CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd, [2006] 155 taxmann 383 Delhi…

Parvathi Garlapati, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 598/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…ned order is erroneous and bad in law inasmuch as the penalty under section 271D of the Act was levied and sustained without satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. Learned AR relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, Mohd. Atiq vs. ITO 46 ITR 452, ITO vs. Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653, CIT vs. Padampat Singhania (HUF) 280 ITR 14, Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITA Nos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020 and Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. JCIT in W.P.No.44285 of 2022, dated 26/12/2022. 5. Per contra, learned DR argued that once the violation of the provisions under section…

Sultana Begum, Hyderabad vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…ned order is erroneous and bad in law inasmuch as the penalty under section 271D of the Act was levied and sustained without satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. Learned AR relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, Mohd. Atiq vs. ITO 46 ITR 452, ITO vs. Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653, CIT vs. Padampat Singhania (HUF) 280 ITR 14, Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITA Nos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020 and Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. JCIT in W.P.No.44285 of 2022, dated 26/12/2022. 5. Per contra, learned DR argued that once the violation of the provisions under section…

Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271D

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), PAN: ANCPR 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR सु…

Glee Pharma Private Limited, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Cuttack

ITA 171/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Pahanawa Pahanawa Associates Associates Pvt Pvt Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Jt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Tax, Tax, Range Range-1, Block, Block, Balaji Balaji Complex Complex Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Housing Society Housing Society, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecp 8304 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/10 0/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi , Nfac, Delhi Dated 3.3.2023 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 015-16. 2. Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass
Section 269TSection 271E

…ternational Finance (I) Limited. Another case law we are herewith refer that, the assessing authority taken it as repayment of loan or deposit, is not violation of 269T as per The Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT Vs Jailaxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC).” 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that he relies upon the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not applied for the increase of the authorized share capital itself and, therefore, as the authorized share capital was fully paid up as on 31.3.2013, P a g e 5 | 8 Assessment Year : 2015-16 the…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…s the same was levied in the year 2017 whereas the transaction of cash loan and repayment of the same pertains to A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 5. Ld. AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Z…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…s the same was levied in the year 2017 whereas the transaction of cash loan and repayment of the same pertains to A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 5. Ld. AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Z…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…s the same was levied in the year 2017 whereas the transaction of cash loan and repayment of the same pertains to A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 5. Ld. AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Z…

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

…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 Chawla Chemtech Private Limited v. JCIT, reported in (2016) 158 ITD 48(Chd.-trib.) g) Appellate Order dated 09.01.2019 passed by ITAT, Jaip…

Rekha, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range 3, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 815/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. AFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Singh
Section 2(14)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…visions of section 269SS of the Act thereby whole proceedings are void ab initio and penalty order passed is illegal and not tenable in law. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [379 ITR 521 (SC)]. The ld. I.T.A. No. 815/Del/2022 Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) T. Shiju, Chennai Vs. JCIT Non Corporate Range 7 dated 7 June, 2019 in ITA. No. 2829/Chny/2018; (ii) ACIT Vs. M/s. Narsi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. I.T. Appeal No. 2866/Del/2013 (Delhi – Trib.); (iii) Prithvi S…

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S.Pramukh Infrastructure, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Pramukh Infrastructure, Commissioner Of Income C/O. Shri Bipinchandra B. Patel, Vs Tax, Pramukh Prasad, N.H.No.8, Link Valsad Circle, Valsad. Road, Dungri, Valsad. Pan: Aaifp 6738 J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…r no reference was made to JCIT for levying penalty under section 271D of the Act. In absence of reference by AO is not valid. To support his submissions, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Jal Laxmi Rice Mills [379 ITR 521] (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC). 6. In alternative submission, the ld.AR of the assessee further submits that provision of section 269SS of the Act are not attracted when money is exchanged inter-se between partner and partnership firm. It is settled legal position under law that firm is not a separate legal entity. All its rights and liabilities…

Smt. Sarita Singh, Jhajjar vs. Addl. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 723/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.723/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Sarita Singh Addl. Cit H.No. 8, Prem Nagar, Vs. Range Rohtak, Near Sector-2, Bahadurgarh, Aaykar Bhawan, Jhajjar. Opposite Mansarovar Park, Rohtak. Pan No. Azxps2543L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…drafts for these two neighbours and ultimate payment to HUDA. The AO did not record any satisfaction in the assessment order for contravention of provisions of section 271D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521 held as under: “For the AY 1992-93, the assessment order was passed on the assessee on February 26, 1996, ex parte. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisfied that penalty proce…