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 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 271D Section 269SS Section 143(3)Section 271E Section 269T Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B Section 147

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271e satisfaction for initiation of penalty section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271d section 275(1)(a)section 271e section 269t section 275(1)section 143(l)(a)section 269st section 269ss section 275

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. Formerly Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 3(2)

ITA/1178/2017HC Delhi21 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…is Court is of the opinion that the ITAT completely ignored its previous order which had the effect of restoring back to the AO the matter for the relevant AYs for fresh assessment. The judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. M/s. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 2015 379 ITR 521 is authority for the proposition that after remand, the matter is at large and that the AO has to apply his mind afresh to the materials and circumstances based on which the appropriate provision can be sought recourse to. In these circumstances, the Revenue’s contention that the penalty amount acquired a distinct character – and a life, as…

ITO, War- 64(5), New Delhi vs. Lekshmi Vishwanath, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 3869/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R

Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…& 3115/D/2017 Mrs. Lakshmi Vishwanath, Delhi. 5. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that no penalty is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) held as under : “For the assessment year 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 t…

Smt. Lekshmi Vishwanath, Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 3115/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R

Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

M/S Anglican India Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee, is allowed

ITA 121/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L. P. Sahu.

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 27I

…learned CIT (Appeals). However, appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 8. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the penalty is not leviable in the matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) held as under :- “ For the assessment year 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…

Srabani Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 240/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sarbani Chakraborty Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pan: Adkpc2488D) Range-29, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2016

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kr. Singh, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…280 ITR 44 (Ker) demands that a consistent view has to be taken in respect of the same assessee for different years. 6. The Ld. AR placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) for the principle that without recording of any satisfaction no penalty could be levied though the AO wanted penalty proceedings to be initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vinod Kr. Agarwal Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 237 and 238/Kol/2013 dated 04.02.2016 while following the above decision of Hon’bl…

Vave Ifotainment Network Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 5669/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain

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

…tion 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 M/s. Vave Infotainment Network Ltd. 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…

Vave Ifotainment Network Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 5668/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain

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

Diastar Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 139/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2006-07) M/s. Diastar Jewellery Add. CIT Range 8(1) Private Limited Vs. 2nd Floor Plot No. 58 Aayakar Bhavan SEEPZ-SEZ M.K. Road Andheri East Mumbai-40 0020. MUMBAI-400 096. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACD1757C Assessee by Ms. Neha paranjpe Department by Shri B.S. Bist Date of Hearing 19.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement 3.8.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- Both the appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-16,…

Smt S B Patil, Bijapur vs. Joint Commissioner of |Ncome-Tax, Bijapur

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

ITA 1053/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajashekar, M. Addl.CIT

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…mandatory that the penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated during the course of assessment. In support of his contention, learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521(SC). As per the learned AR failure to raise this ground originally was neither willful nor deliberate. All the material that were required for deciding the additional grounds were, as per the learned AR on record. 4. Per contra, learned DR submitted that such grounds were never raised by the assessee before any lower authorities. 5. We have h…

Binod Kumar Agarwal., Uttar Dinajpur vs. J.C.I.T Range - 2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 237/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjun, CIT, ld.DR

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

…on before the ld. JCIT proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. In support of our submission we rely on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC)/64 taxmann.com 75(SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “4. The Tribunal as well as the High Court has held that it could not be so for the simple reason that when the original assessment order itself was set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalty proceeding under Section 271E would also not…