CIT v. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.

345 ITR 51High Court2012#10022 most cited

What is CIT v. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd. authority for?

The six-month period for imposing a penalty under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act commences after the final decision of successive appeals by the CIT(A) or ITAT, whichever is later.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd. · Section 275(1)(a) · penalty period · CIT(A) · ITAT · limitation · appeals · six months

Also reported as

245 CTR 312
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kostub Investment Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2281/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;” 9.1 Interpreting this Section, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mohair Investment And Trading (2012) 345 ITR 51 Delhi has taken note of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 452 (Mad) and held in para 10 and 11 as follows :- “10. From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successiv…

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)

…ed under the provisions of Section 275(I)(a) of the LT. Act. The assessee relied on various decisions as under and 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 Ass…

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)

…ed under the provisions of Section 275(I)(a) of the LT. Act. The assessee relied on various decisions as under and 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 Ass…

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)

…ed under the provisions of Section 275(I)(a) of the LT. Act. The assessee relied on various decisions as under and 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 Ass…

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)

…ed under the provisions of Section 275(I)(a) of the LT. Act. The assessee relied on various decisions as under and 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 Ass…

Cushman & Wakefield Property Management Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 4

…it has been passed in contravention to specific provisions of section 275 (1)(a) of the Act and in complete disregard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the 3 case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P. Ltd. (245 CTR 312). 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The assessee filed its r…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…time. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the assessee’s case in view of the decision in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2007] 288 ITR 452 (Mad.) The same view stands subsequently expressed in CIT v. Mohair Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 51 (Del). It stands clarified that the proviso, inserted to section 275(1)(a) by Finance Act, 2003, becomes applicable only in cases where no appeal is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. A proviso, it was explained, making reference to judicial decisions regarding the function of a proviso, that the same is merely subsidiary to the main section…

Smt. Geeta Rani Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishigeeta Rani Yadav, Vs. Ito, Sector-62, Shastri Nagar, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Aaxpy3625N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 254Section 271

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Geeta Rani Yadav, Vs. ITO, Sector-62, Shastri Nagar, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN: AAXPY3625N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jha, Adv Revenue by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/06/2018 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- Ghaziabad dated 08.12.2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Info City Developers (Chennai) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5134/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5134/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), M/S DLF INFO CITY GURGAON VS. DEVELOPERS (CHENNAI) LTD., 3RD FLOOR, SHOPPING MALL COMPLEX, ARJUN MARG, DLF CITY, PHASE-IV, GURGAON (PAN:AACCD1488Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. R.S. Singhvi, & Satyajeet Goel, CAs’ ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed the appeal against the Order dated 11.6.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5133/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(a)Section 80I

…ot imposed the penalty on identical facts in the A. Y. 2008-09. This view draws support from the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd. dated 30.09.2011 in ITA No.511/2011 reported as (2012) 345 ITR 51, wherein the issue of limitation as enshrined U/s 275 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was considered. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under: "11. Thus we are of the view that the proviso to Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act does not nullify the availability to the Assessing Officer of the period of limitation of six months from the end of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Multiplex Capital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed on merits

ITA 6010/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 88E

…Thus, we are unable to agree with the legal contention of the ld. AR that the impugned penalty is time barred. Our above noted conclusion also gets strength from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Mohair Investment reported as 345 ITR 51 [Del]. 16. Per contra, it is vivid from the dates as noted above by us that the ld. CIT [J] received copy of the Tribunal order dated 23.4.2012 and from the end of April 2012 six months period was allowed to the AO for passing the impugned penalty order and the AO passed penalty order on 30.10.2012 which is well within the prescribed limit as per…

CIT v. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd. (345 ITR 51) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax