CIT v. Panchjanyam Management

333 ITR 281High Court2011#8995 most cited

What is CIT v. Panchjanyam Management authority for?

Where the Assessing Officer (AO) of the 'person searched' under section 153A is the same as the AO for the 'other person' covered under section 153C, there is no requirement for the AO to record satisfaction under section 153C.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v Panchjanyam Management · section 153A · section 153C · satisfaction note · same assessing officer · assessment · search assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Panchjanyam Management

Lekshmi Traders vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/2/2018HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: LEKSHMI TRADERSFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 132Section 158B

…emplated u/s. 158BD, which forms the basis for passing Annexure J order? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision in Panchajanyam Management Agencies Case, reported in (2011) 333 ITR 281; which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of facts? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in not considering or distinguishing any of the decisions relied on by the appellant, which settled the legal position that recording of satisfaction by the assessing officer is a sine q…

Mamta Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…atisfaction by the A.O. of the searched person is sine-qua- non and in absence of such satisfaction, the proceedings initiated U/s 153C are bad in law. The decisions relied upon by the ld AR are as under: 1. CIT Vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Services 333 ITR 281 (ker). 2. Chandrekant Bhai Amrit lal Thakkar 337 ITR 258 (Guj) 3. ITAT Amritsar in the case of ACIT Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Ripan Deep Takhar, delivered on 13/06//2016 He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana 362 ITR 673 and submitted that a satisfaction not…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…Revenue is that when the A.O. of the ‗person searched‘ u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961 is the SAME as for the ‗other person‘ covered u/s 153C of I.T. Act, 1961 — then as held by the Hon‘ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies 333 ITR 281 (Ker.) there is no need to record this satisfaction u/s 153C of I.T. Act, 1961. Hence — whatever satisfaction has been recorded by the AO — is NOT required in/by LAW since A.O. is the same. Logically and consequentially it follows - that if the recording of this - satisfaction is NOT a sine qua non as AO is the same – then whatever has been recor…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…ement of hearing over and taking over of the documents. Decisions in favour of Revenue of the High Court: 1. SSP Aviation Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.C. No. 309/2011 (Delhi HC) dated 29.03.2012(Para 1 & 2 ) 2. CIT v. Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services 333 ITR 281 (Kerala HC) (Para 4) . 3. Dr. K. M. Mehboob vs. DCIT [2012] 26 Taxmann.com 54(Kerala )(Para 5 ) 4. Super Mall Pvt Ltd ITA 9/20016dated 22.11.2016 5. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt Ltd ITA No. 8/2017 dated 03.02.2017 Decisions in favour of Revenue of ITAT 1. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1 072/De1l2011, A.Y. 2008-09(Delhi F…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…ement of hearing over and taking over of the documents. Decisions in favour of Revenue of the High Court: 1. SSP Aviation Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.C. No. 309/2011 (Delhi HC) dated 29.03.2012(Para 1 & 2 ) 2. CIT v. Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services 333 ITR 281 (Kerala HC) (Para 4) . 3. Dr. K. M. Mehboob vs. DCIT [2012] 26 Taxmann.com 54(Kerala )(Para 5 ) 4. Super Mall Pvt Ltd ITA 9/20016dated 22.11.2016 5. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt Ltd ITA No. 8/2017 dated 03.02.2017 Decisions in favour of Revenue of ITAT 1. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1 072/De1l2011, A.Y. 2008-09(Delhi F…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1079/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…in the context of different AOs that, “this is purely an internal arrangement between two Departmental Officers" and in this case since the same officer held jurisdiction in dual capacity, his satisfaction is clearly made out. • CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon’ble Kerala High Court) and • Subham Javedvs ACIT (2010) 122 ITD 307 (Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Bench ‘B’ reiterate this position. 8. The case of Supreme Court decision of Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana dated 12th March 2014, 362 ITR 673(SC) the court has held that for the purpose of section 158 BD of the Act a satisfaction note must be…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…in the context of different AOs that, “this is purely an internal arrangement between two Departmental Officers" and in this case since the same officer held jurisdiction in dual capacity, his satisfaction is clearly made out. • CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon’ble Kerala High Court) and • Subham Javedvs ACIT (2010) 122 ITD 307 (Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Bench ‘B’ reiterate this position. 8. The case of Supreme Court decision of Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana dated 12th March 2014, 362 ITR 673(SC) the court has held that for the purpose of section 158 BD of the Act a satisfaction note must be…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6240/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…sessee's counsel that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO, who 19 conducted the search before transferring materials or articles or things found belonging; to another assesse". The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon'ble Kerala High Court), while distinguishing the facts of the case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari reported at 289 ITR 341 (SC) held at para 7 "In our view, in the first place, there is no mention in section 15880 that the Assessing Officer before transferring the file to another officer having jurisdi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6239/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…sessee's counsel that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO, who 19 conducted the search before transferring materials or articles or things found belonging; to another assesse". The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon'ble Kerala High Court), while distinguishing the facts of the case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari reported at 289 ITR 341 (SC) held at para 7 "In our view, in the first place, there is no mention in section 15880 that the Assessing Officer before transferring the file to another officer having jurisdi…

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6217/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…sessee's counsel that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO, who 19 conducted the search before transferring materials or articles or things found belonging; to another assesse". The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon'ble Kerala High Court), while distinguishing the facts of the case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari reported at 289 ITR 341 (SC) held at para 7 "In our view, in the first place, there is no mention in section 15880 that the Assessing Officer before transferring the file to another officer having jurisdi…

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6216/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…sessee's counsel that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO, who 19 conducted the search before transferring materials or articles or things found belonging; to another assesse". The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v Panchjanyam Management 333 ITR 281 (Kerala) Hon'ble Kerala High Court), while distinguishing the facts of the case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari reported at 289 ITR 341 (SC) held at para 7 "In our view, in the first place, there is no mention in section 15880 that the Assessing Officer before transferring the file to another officer having jurisdi…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Noble Mercantile Pvt. Ltd

ITA/527/2015HC Delhi03 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153C

…ies to beneficiaries. Accordingly, there was an intricate connection between Ganpati and Aseem Kumar Gupta. (ii) With reference to the satisfaction note, a reference was made to the decision in CIT v. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Services (2011) 333 ITR 281 (Ker.). It was held that “where the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the person against whom proceedings under Section 153C are initiated are one and the same there is no need to record satisfaction.” Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in TVS Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (C) (order dated…

CIT v. Panchjanyam Management (333 ITR 281) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax