What is CIT v. Parma Nand authority for?

Whether there was sufficient cause for delay in making applications for registration under section 12A and 80G is always a question of fact, and contumacious conduct by the assessee must be established for levying penalty under section 271C for non-deduction of TDS.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Parma Nand?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Parma Nand (268 ITR 172), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Parma Nand come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119, Section 12A, Section 80G(5)(iii), Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), Section 80G(5), Section 80G(5)(iv)(B).

CIT v. Parma Nand (268 ITR 172)

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT vs. Parma Nand (2003) 180 CTR (Del) 489: (2004) 266 ITR 255 (Del): 135 Taxman 100 (Del) and (ii) CIT vs. ITO CHU Corpn. (2004) 190 CTR (Del) 31: (2004) 268 ITR 172 (Del): (2004) 139 Taxman 348 (Del). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under ss. 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, n…

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT vs. Parma Nand (2003) 180 CTR (Del) 489: (2004) 266 ITR 255 (Del): 135 Taxman 100 (Del) and (ii) CIT vs. ITO CHU Corpn. (2004) 190 CTR (Del) 31: (2004) 268 ITR 172 (Del): (2004) 139 Taxman 348 (Del). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under ss. 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, n…

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

…delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT vs. Parma Nand (2003) 180 CTR (Del) 489: (2004) 266 ITR 255 (Del): 135 Taxman 100 (Del) and (ii) CIT vs. ITO CHU Corpn. (2004) 190 CTR (Del) 31: (2004) 268 ITR 172 (Del): (2004) 139 Taxman 348 (Del). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under ss. 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, n…

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 258/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 257/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Dharam Singh Ji Nishkam Chandigarh. Satsang Sabha, Ludhiana. [PAN: AAGAB1280Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Himmat Singh Ji Nishkam Chandigarh. Satsang Sabha, (through its managing trustee, Ludhiana. [PAN: AAGAB1279F] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Inderjit Paul, Adv…

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 257/ASR/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 257/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Dharam Singh Ji Nishkam Chandigarh. Satsang Sabha, Ludhiana. [PAN: AAGAB1280Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Bhai Daya Singh Ji Bhai Vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Himmat Singh Ji Nishkam Chandigarh. Satsang Sabha, (through its managing trustee, Ludhiana. [PAN: AAGAB1279F] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Inderjit Paul, Adv…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM ITA No. 113 & 114 /Jodh/ 2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ITO Vs. The Deputy Conservator of TDS, Udaipur Forest South Rajasthan-313001 Van Bhawan Parisar, In front of Mohta Park, Chetak Circle Udaipur, Rajasthan PAN NO: JDHD01240B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals have been fi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM ITA No. 113 & 114 /Jodh/ 2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ITO Vs. The Deputy Conservator of TDS, Udaipur Forest South Rajasthan-313001 Van Bhawan Parisar, In front of Mohta Park, Chetak Circle Udaipur, Rajasthan PAN NO: JDHD01240B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals have been fi…

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 163/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

…estion whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two 12 | Page Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT v. Parma Nand [2004] 266 ITR_255/135 Taxman 100 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, nor is it…

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

…the delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two 12 | P a g e KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST, KUTCH - 370240 Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT v. Parma Nand [2004] 266 ITR 255/135 Taxman 100 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, nor is it…

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 80G(5)

…se. The question whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT v. Parma Nand [2004] 266 ITR 255/135 Taxman 100 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in Page 14 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. making the applications for registration unde…

SHYAM COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2020/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 119Section 194CSection 196Section 271C

…h levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 8 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India 8 ITA No.2020/Del./2023 Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C." 3. Being aggrieved,…

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…se. The question whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT v. Parma Nand [2004] 266 ITR 255/135 Taxman 100 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corpn. [2004] 268 ITR 172/139 Taxman 348 (Delhi). The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee-society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G of the Act. It is not necessary, nor is it…

ITO WARD-77(3), NEW DELHI vs. STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1236/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer, Vs M/s Sterling Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ward 77(3), New Delhi. 20A, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi-110054. PAN- AAKCS7108Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Jaspal Singh Sethi, Adv. Department represented by Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.11.2023 Date of pronouncement 22.11.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against the order of th…

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…h levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C." 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matt…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…h levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C." 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matt…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…h levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C." 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matt…

VIRESH PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7436/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7436/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271C

…h levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's I.T.A.No.7436/Del/2019 appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271- C." 3. Being aggrieved, t…

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] DCIT, Circle-76(1), Vs M/s Omaxe Limited, new Delhi-110019 7, Local Shopping Centre, Near Post Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. PAN/TAN:AAACO0171H/DE LO01861G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by: Sh. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. Department represented by: Sh. Jitender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.01.2023 Date of pronouncement 30 .01.2023 O R D E R PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The Revenue/Department has preferred the instan…

ITO, TDS WARD 74(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI POLICE, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

…acious penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271C of the Act, as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Nova Scotia 380 ITR 550 (SC) and judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs ITOCHU Corp., reported as 268 ITR 172 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Mistui & Co. Ltd., reported as 272 ITR 545. 5. On careful consideration above submissions from the first appellate order we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee with following observations and findings:- 10.1 It is trite law that penalty proceedings have to be strictly construed. For this proposi…

ITO, TDS, WARD-74(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI POLICE, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8063/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

…acious penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271C of the Act, as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Nova Scotia 380 ITR 550 (SC) and judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs ITOCHU Corp., reported as 268 ITR 172 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Mistui & Co. Ltd., reported as 272 ITR 545. 5. On careful consideration above submissions from the first appellate order we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee with following observations and findings:- 10.1 It is trite law that penalty proceedings have to be strictly construed. For this proposi…

CIT v. Parma Nand

What is CIT v. Parma Nand authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Parma Nand

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

SHYAM COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITO WARD-77(3), NEW DELHI vs. STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

VIRESH PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

ITO, TDS WARD 74(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI POLICE, NEW DELHI

ITO, TDS, WARD-74(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI POLICE, NEW DELHI