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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (379 ITR 521), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271D, Section 269SS, Section 143(3), Section 271E, Section 269T, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (379 ITR 521)

M/S. B.P. Patel & Co., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 613/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. B. P. Patel and Co. Vs. ITO Dist. Dasharath, Ward-1(2)(1), Baroda- 391740 Baroda [PAN No. AAB FB1 000 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. J. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 31.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2020 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order date…

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

…n the issue of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings, the Learned Senior Counsel has cited number of decisions, but relied mainly on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mils (379 ITR 521) and the decision of the Tribunal Delhi bench in the case of Narsi Iron and Steels P Ltd (ITA No. 2866/Del/2013). 9. In the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), while framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Sec. 269T of the Act and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisf…

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

…n the issue of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings, the Learned Senior Counsel has cited number of decisions, but relied mainly on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mils (379 ITR 521) and the decision of the Tribunal Delhi bench in the case of Narsi Iron and Steels P Ltd (ITA No. 2866/Del/2013). 9. In the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), while framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Sec. 269T of the Act and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisf…

K Ramaswamy, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 956/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiasl.No Ita Nos. Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1 956 To 2007-08, K.Ramaswamy, The Acit, No.567, Ashwini,1St Cross, 958(B)/2018 2008-09 & & Circle-(1), 2009-10 Maruthi Temple Road, Mysore-570 008 Kuvempunagara, Mysore- 570 023. Pan No.Adgpr5117A 2 961, 964 & 2010-11, K.Ramaswamy, The Acit, Ashwini,1St 965(B)/2018 2011-12 & No.567, Circle-(1), 2012-13 Cross, Maruthi Mysore-570 008 Temple Road, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570 023 Pan No.Adgpr5117A 3 967(B)/2018 2010-11 R.Ajith, No.567,Ashwini,1St The Acit, Cross, Maruthi Circle-(1), Temple Road, Mysore-570 008 Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570 023 Pan No.Agppr0788R

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ted proceedings u/s 271B of the Act, then the order imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act is liable to be cancelled on that ground. Our attention was also drawn to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mill, Amabala City (379 ITR 521(SC) wherein, in the context of imposition of penalty u/s 271E of the Act (which is akin to sec.271D) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order is required and in the absence of the same the penalty proceedings u/s 27E of the Act are liable to be cancelled. 16. The…

M/S, Essilor India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2905/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiasl.No Ita Nos. Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1 956 To 2007-08, K.Ramaswamy, The Acit, No.567, Ashwini,1St Cross, 958(B)/2018 2008-09 & & Circle-(1), 2009-10 Maruthi Temple Road, Mysore-570 008 Kuvempunagara, Mysore- 570 023. Pan No.Adgpr5117A 2 961, 964 & 2010-11, K.Ramaswamy, The Acit, Ashwini,1St 965(B)/2018 2011-12 & No.567, Circle-(1), 2012-13 Cross, Maruthi Mysore-570 008 Temple Road, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570 023 Pan No.Adgpr5117A 3 967(B)/2018 2010-11 R.Ajith, No.567,Ashwini,1St The Acit, Cross, Maruthi Circle-(1), Temple Road, Mysore-570 008 Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570 023 Pan No.Agppr0788R

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ted proceedings u/s 271B of the Act, then the order imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act is liable to be cancelled on that ground. Our attention was also drawn to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mill, Amabala City (379 ITR 521(SC) wherein, in the context of imposition of penalty u/s 271E of the Act (which is akin to sec.271D) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order is required and in the absence of the same the penalty proceedings u/s 27E of the Act are liable to be cancelled. 16. The…

The Nizar Taluka Khedut Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., Tapi vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-6, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3157/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3157/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Nizar Taluka Sahkari Kharid V The Joint Commissioner Of Vechan Sangh Ltd., S Income Tax, Range-6, Surat. At & Post : Nizar, Tal: Nizar, . Dist: Tapu. [Pan: Aaaat 8798 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 25.08.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Solitary Ground Relates To Order That In Confirming The Order Passed Of Ao U/S.271D Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…s been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings in the orders of assessment, if any, passed for A.Y. 2000-01. According to the learned A.R. for the assessee, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC), dealing with the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, has held that if there is no satisfaction recorded in the order of assessment regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, then no penalty thereunder could be levied. We have, respectfully perused a copy of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Ap…