CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar

44 ITR 739Supreme Court of India1962#2218 most cited

What is CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar authority for?

The power to impose a penalty under Section 28 (now 271(1)(c)) depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction about the existence of the specified conditions. This satisfaction must be recorded in the course of the assessment proceedings and before their conclusion.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar · 44 ITR 739 · section 271(1)(c) · section 28 · Assessing Officer satisfaction · penalty initiation · recording satisfaction · conclusion of assessment proceedings · levy of penalty · concealment penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(5)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 28(1)speculation lossbona fide mistakesection 73section 43(5)speculative transactiondeletion of penaltysection 35dpenalty proceedings initiatednon application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar

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

…to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT /1972] 86 ITR 557, wherein their Lordships have reiterated the view of the law taken in CIT v. S.V.Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739, 745, stated in the following terms : " The power to impose penalty under section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in clause (a), (b) or (c) before the proceedings are concluded. The procee…

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)

…o clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557, wherein their Lordships have reiterated the view of the law taken in CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739, 745, stated in the following terms: " The power to impose penalty under section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in clause (a), (b) or (c) before the proceedings are concluded. The proceed…

Ulka Madhukar Shinde, Panvel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 600/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri Anthony DsonzaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 147Section 271

…ppellant. Case laws relied upon: 1. Manveer Singh Vs ITO (TAT Delhi -ITA No. 2976/Del2022 dated 20/06/2023) 2. DashrathbhaiShivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO (|TAT Ahmedabad) 3. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT Vs S.V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) 5. CIT VS Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2001) 248 ITR 338 (Delhi HC) 6. BrijBhushan Lal Praduman Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) 7. Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd V/s ITO 338 |TR 51 (Delhi HC) 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant is unwarranted, since the ent…

Sms Concast Ag, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-1444/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 1999-2000) LT Foods Unit 134, 1st Floor, Addl. CIT Special Rectangle, Saket Distt. Vs. Range-5 Centre, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi PAN No:AAACL0259K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by: Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate Sh. Shivam Gupta, AR Respondent by : Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.05.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM The appeal by assessee is preferred against the order of Commissio…

Sai Homes, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Panvel Circle, 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

…n for levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is the satisfaction of the AO to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his 4 satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specif…

Bhaskara Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1512/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e or unsubstantiated. 9. Per contra, learned DR submitted that the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC), and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 20 Taxman 111 (Andhra Pradesh) and Sreenivasa Pitty & Sons vs. CIT reported in [1988] 38 Taxman 309 (Andhra Pradesh). He further submitted a Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, in the case of Moola Padmaja Vs ACIT in ITA No.234/Hyd/2022 for the assessment year…

Savita Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assessm…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. CCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

DCIT-Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

DCIT CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see falls either under the first limb or under the second limb. A mandatory presence of the requisite ‘satisfaction’ of the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has been affirmed by the courts. A reference is made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1973 AIR 22] (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] [Kar.] in this regard. 9.2.2 Hence, in the backdrop of judicial pronouncements, ‘satisfaction’ of the AO vis a vis the nature of default is a sine qua non and required to be indicated by express assertion to this effect in the course of assess…

Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…ection 274 was to follow. What was important was that satisfaction had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under Section 274 of the Act. (See D.M. Manasvi (1972) 861TR 557 and and S. V. Angid Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739. A bare reading of the aforesaid extract from Rampur Engineering (supra) would show that the Full Bench: (i) applied the law, as it ought to, as declared in D.M. Manasvi (supra) and S.V. AngidiChettiar (supra)WP(C) No. 5059-2008 Page 49 of 64 (ii) a fortiori the principle for initiation of penalty proceedings being the prima facie satisfaction of…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, vs DCIT, C/o-M/s. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAJPK4005H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi…

DCIT 10 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Maharashtra Electronic Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8051/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 10(2)(2) V. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Room No. 216-A Corporation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. Am-3, Midc Cross Road “A” Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacm4980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C. Jain Assessee By : Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…ed that the case law relied by Ld.CIT(A) i.e. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [44 ITR 739]. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 9 M/s. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that assessee has wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra and in view of continues losses and it became sick company und…

Pradeep Sood, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- I, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 534/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pradeep Sood Vs DCIT RRA Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New AEZPS3313K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/11/2017 passed by CIT…

Mayasheel Construction, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3936 & 3937/DEL/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mayasheel Construction Vs DCIT, C/o. Kapil Goel, Adv., Circle -1, G-26-124, Sector-7, Ghaziabad Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (PAN: AAPFM 5854 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders dated 28.02.2019 passed by…

CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (44 ITR 739) — Cited in 52 Judgments | BharatTax