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.

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bharat Hotels Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/1074/2006HC Delhi13 Sept 2007
Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessment order indicates no satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that the penalty proceedings should be initiated against the Assessee. Following the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited [2000] 246 ITR 568 which has been since approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC), the Tribunal held against the Revenue on this ground and upheld the order of the CIT(A). 4. The Tribunal considered the case on merits a…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 26 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] 47. It is furthermore of some significance that the Commissioner in its order dated 30.11.2000 made a terse comment that the assessee cannot shift the burden of concealment to any other person, meaning thereby, the registered valuer. He, furthermore, made a comment that th…

Sri T. Ashok Pai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

…hat 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. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 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 assessm…