CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

246 ITR 568High Court2000#1055 most cited

What is CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. · section 271(1)(c) penalty · recording satisfaction · assessment order · penalty initiation · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty jurisdiction · section 143(3) · burden of proof penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(5)Section 272A(1)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)section 271section 27section 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

…f such satisfaction, the initiation itself becomes without jurisdiction and invalid in the eyes of law. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 7 to 13 of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 which is to the following effect: "7. The learned senior counsel for the assessee has submitted that the satisfaction as to the assessee having concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income is to be arrived at by the Assessing Officer during the Page 7 of 12 ITA No.1164 & 2287/Hyd/2025 Srimad Virat P…

Vijayawada Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…nce was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. R. Projects & Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (300 ITR 40), wherein, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (246 ITR 568), it was held that in the absence of recording of satisfaction in the assessment order, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to quash the penalty order of the Ld. AO. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…ding as to how and as to in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income-tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi), 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus. burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment procee…

Jomon John, Bazar vs. I. T. O, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s.144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…om the recording of the satisfaction of the AO. In case, there is a defect in the assumption of jurisdiction itself, no penalty can be levied as held in CIT v. Munish Iron Store [2003] 263 ITR 484 (P&H) as held in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del). A bare reading of the provisions of sec.271 and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane Court in D. M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC) and CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 I.T.R. 739 (SC), makes it clear that it is the authority imposing the penalty which has to form its opinion and record its satisfac…

Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

…4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321: (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere 17 Sh. Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 1.9 Without prejudice to the submission made above, it may be mentioned that the penalty proceedings were initiated by issue of a notice u/s 274…

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…nitiated in the facts of the present case. 2.15. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT: 246 ITR 571 (Del) • CIT v. Super Metal Re- rollers (P) Ltd.: 265 ITR 82 (Del) • CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.: 246 ITR 568 (Del) • CIT vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd.: 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (FB) 9 | P a g e • Dr Sita Bhagi v. ACIT in ITANos.l286/Del/2017 (Del. Tri.) 2.16. Kind attention, in this regard, is further invited to the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Budge Budge Co. Ltd: 100 ITD 387 wherein the Tribunal held that routine s…

Kashyap Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 159/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Kashyap Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Kashyap Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 157/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Kashyap Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 156/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Kashyap Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 155/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 45(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

ITA 3282/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27iSection 68Section 80C

…urnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond Gurmeet Kaur Kalra 6 any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]” 8.1 Further, in CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assesse…

Asha Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/JPR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321: Asha Yadav vs. ITO (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.” In view of the above submissions and position of law the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is wrong and invalid in the eyes of law and deserves to be deleted.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) observed that a…

Kalawathi Bagayath, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1280/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was :- 8 -: ITA N…

Kalawathi Bagayath, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1279/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was :- 8 -: ITA N…

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

…and in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571] … … … 48. Primary burden of proof, therefore, is on the revenue. The statute requires satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount…

Dlf Commercial Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2530/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered a…

Axis Trading Co.Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1170/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2013-14
Section 271(1)(b)

…4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2001] 167 CTR (Del) 321 : [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Axis Trading Co.Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1169/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 271(1)(b)

…4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2001] 167 CTR (Del) 321 : [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…