CIT v. Rampur Engg

309 ITR 143High Court2009#3733 most cited

What is CIT v. Rampur Engg authority for?

The power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Income-tax Act depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, which must be recorded during the proceedings. If the officer is not satisfied and has not recorded this satisfaction, the penalty cannot be exercised.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rampur Engg · section 271 · penalty proceedings · Assessing Officer satisfaction · recorded satisfaction · initiation of penalty · section 143(3) · furnishing inaccurate particulars · levy of penalty · income tax penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularslevy of penaltysection 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 143(3)total incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Rampur Engg

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…on for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of CSR expenses. Therefore penalty imposed on disallowance of CSR expenses is uncalled for. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (HC) (FB) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 9 of the order held as under:- “9. In our opinion, the legal position is well-settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in S.V. AngidiChettiar’s case (supra) and D.M. Manasvi’s case (supra), that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-ta…

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…initiation\nof penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of CSR expenses. Therefore\npenalty imposed on disallowance of CSR expenses is uncalled for. Reliance in this\nconnection is placed on the following cases:-\n\nCIT Vs. Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (HC) (FB)\nThe Hon'ble High Court at Para 9 of the order held as under:-\n\n“9. In our opinion, the legal position is well-settled in view of the Supreme Court\ndecisions in S.V. AngidiChettiar's case (supra) and D.M. Manasvi's case (supra),\nthat power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the\nsatisfaction of the In…

SAI HOMES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.578/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sai Homes, Vs. Acit, 310-313, Persipolis Cooperative Society, Panvel Circle, Plot No.74, Sector-17, Panvel Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705 Maharashtra Pan : Abafs3226K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.578/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sai Homes, Vs. ACIT, 310-313, Persipolis Cooperative Society, Panvel Circle, Plot No.74, Sector-17, Panvel Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705 Maharashtra PAN : ABAFS3226K Appellant Respondent : Assessee by None Revenue by : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 20.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 20.05.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune-11 da…

ARUNACHAL POLICE HOUSING & WELFARE CORPORATION LIMITED,PAPUMPARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…st be in writing. The Tribunal has taken the correct view of the matter and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.” 5.1. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del.), which held as under:- “We hasten to add that pending reference, sub-section (1B) has been inserted in section 271 of the Income-tax Act by Finance Act, 2008. The said provision purports to create a fiction by which satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is deemed to have been recorded in cases where an addition or disallowance is made by t…

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)

…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 statement by the AO in the assessment order that "penalty…

NAVNEET KR. KEDIA,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 349/PAT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2006-07 Navneet Kumar Kedia Income Tax Officer बनाम S/O Mohan Kumar Kedia Ward-3(1), Purnia Prop. M/S Kedia Trading V/S. Co. Gulabbagh, Purnia [Pan No.Aejpk 1399 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-09-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bhagalpur’S Order Dated 31.10.2013 Involving Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Identical Condonation Petition For Delay Of 197 Days’ On Account Of Compilation Of Necessary Records Etc., We Hold That The Same Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But On Account Of Circumstances Beyond His Control. The Same Stands Condoned. The Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits. 3. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In This Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt stands in view of the case laws (2009) 309 ITR 107 (Del) Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India, (2013) 359 ITR 515 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del) & PCIT v/s. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley ITAT No. 306 of 2017 GA No. 2968 of 2017 dt.18.7.2018 (Cal). Their lordships decide the issue in assessee’s favour that such a compliance has to come at the time of finalization of assessments proceedings as well. We thus reject the Revenue’s foregoing stand relying on both the lower authorities’ action im…

RAVI PRAKASH OJHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

ITA 4/RAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “E” Court at KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.01 to 04/Ran/2020 Assessment Years :2011-12 to 2014-15 Ravi Prakash Ojha Assistant Commissioner D-3, 3rd Floor, B.S of Income Tax, Central बनाम Apartment, Road No.4, Circle-1, Ranchi-834001 V/s. Contractor Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur -831001 [PAN No.AAGPO 7836 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R.R. Mital, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri N.S. Khalkho. JCIT-Sr-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-09-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

RAVI PRAKASH OJHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

ITA 3/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “E” Court at KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.01 to 04/Ran/2020 Assessment Years :2011-12 to 2014-15 Ravi Prakash Ojha Assistant Commissioner D-3, 3rd Floor, B.S of Income Tax, Central बनाम Apartment, Road No.4, Circle-1, Ranchi-834001 V/s. Contractor Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur -831001 [PAN No.AAGPO 7836 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R.R. Mital, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri N.S. Khalkho. JCIT-Sr-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-09-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

SHRI RAEES AHMAD KHAN,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), BOKARO STEEL CITY

Appeals are allowed

ITA 331/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt stands in view of the case laws (2009) 309 ITR 107 (Del) Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India, (2013) 359 ITR 515 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del). Their lordships decide the issue in assessee’s favour that such a compliance has to come at the time of finalization of assessments proceedings as well. I thus reject the Revenue’s foregoing stand relying on both the lower authorities’ action imposing the impugned penalty(ies). Same are directed to be deleted therefore. 4. These three asse…

SHRI RAEES AHMAD KHAN,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), BOKARO STEEL CITY

Appeals are allowed

ITA 330/RAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt stands in view of the case laws (2009) 309 ITR 107 (Del) Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India, (2013) 359 ITR 515 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del). Their lordships decide the issue in assessee’s favour that such a compliance has to come at the time of finalization of assessments proceedings as well. I thus reject the Revenue’s foregoing stand relying on both the lower authorities’ action imposing the impugned penalty(ies). Same are directed to be deleted therefore. 4. These three asse…

SHRI RAEES AHMAD KHAN,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), BOKARO STEEL CITY

Appeals are allowed

ITA 329/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…nt stands in view of the case laws (2009) 309 ITR 107 (Del) Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India, (2013) 359 ITR 515 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del). Their lordships decide the issue in assessee’s favour that such a compliance has to come at the time of finalization of assessments proceedings as well. I thus reject the Revenue’s foregoing stand relying on both the lower authorities’ action imposing the impugned penalty(ies). Same are directed to be deleted therefore. 4. These three asse…

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 966/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2527/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1869/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1866/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1870/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1868/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1867/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rampur Engg. [2009] 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is adde…

KANWAR PAL SINGH,SHAMLI vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), SHAMLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5501/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 Neelam Rani Verma, Vs. Ito, C/O Panwar Pathology Lab, Ward-1(4), Hanuman Tila, Shamli Road, Shamli. Shamli, Up. Pan: Aeipv1748Q Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kanwar Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O Panwar Pathology Lab, Ward-1(4), Hanuman Tila, Shamli Road, Shamli. Shamli, Up. Pan: Bcnps5303N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

…action as to whether the initiation of penalty is on account of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd., reported in 309 ITR 143 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the power to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) depends upon the satisfaction of the ITO in the course of the proceedings under the Act. He drew the attention of the Bench to para 9 of the said order which reads as under:- “ 9. In our opinion, the legal position is we…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2