How many judgments cite CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (44 ITR 739), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 253(5).

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 147 Section 253(5)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)satisfaction for initiation of penalty section 28(1)speculation loss bona fide mistake section 73 section 43(5)speculative transaction deletion of penalty section 35d penalty proceedings initiated non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar

M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…basis or the fulcrum on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)) could be initiated, is, apart from being apparent from a bare reading of the provision, reading as under, well settled (refer: D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC); CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC)): ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person — (a) - (b)……. (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished…

Ms/ Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries, Agra vs. The A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Agra

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

ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…jeev Kumar Gupta vs. CIT”, 123 ITR 907, Allahabad, (HC). (xv) “Ajay ITO”, Kumar vs. ITA No. 53/Agra/2015.(xvi) “N.N. SubramaniaIyer vs. UOI”, 97 ITR 228 (Ker). I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 7 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. AngidiChettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (b) No.9772/2013 (SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA (e) No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “ShyamBiri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All. H.…

Nisha Synthetics Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. Range - 34, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 5859/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhnisha Synthetics Ltd. Jcit Special Range -34 Emca House, 2Nd Floor, R.No. 208, Mumbai. 289, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaacn1348P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Pikala (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Pikala (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)

…(Appeals) erred in fact not following the law in following Judgments :- 1) Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Vs. ACIT Cir. 1 Rajkot in ITA. No. 285/RJt/2007 Assessment Year 1992-93 2) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. S. V. Angidi Chettiar (Se) (1962) 44 ITR 739 3) Ranchhodbhai Haribhai Jadav Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 153 CTR 250 (Guj) High Court 6) The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law in not following the Karnataka High Court Order reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory which has been followed by the ju…

Sh. Sachin Arora, Mathura vs. I.T.O.-3(4), Mathura

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs. ITO, Agra”, ITA Nos.53 & (b) 54/Agra/2015, dated 19.05.2017. “Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No.9772/2013 (SC). (c) “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, in ITA (d) Nos.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f)…

M/S Aditya Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law for this reason also in view of following judgments of jurisdictional Court: CIT v. Madhu Shree Gupta 317 ITR 107 (Del) (CLC Pg no. 81-99) D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557 (SC) CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 (SC) CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Del) (CLC Page no. 100-103) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT 246 ITR 571(Del) (CLC Pg no. 104-111) CIT vs Munish Iron Store 63 ITR 484 (P&H) Global Green Company Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No.1390/Del/2011 AY 2001-02, ITAT Delhi M/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 334/D/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 da…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique, Mumbai

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

ITA 7413/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, D.R

Section 271

…Assessing Officer to direct such person to pay penalty. This satisfaction is to be arrived at in the course of assessment or reassessment and is to be spelt out in such assessment or reassessment order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. S.V Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 SC had observed that the power to impose penalty depends upon the satisfaction of the ITO in the course of proceedings under the Act and that it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified, before the proceedings are concluded. In other words, it was held by the Supreme Court that merely because penalty p…

Avadh Narayan K Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 991/MUM/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

…ITR 267 (Del). Same is the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Dajibhai Kanjibhai (1991) 189 ITR 41 (Bom). 7 9.In our opinion, the legal position is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT & Anr. vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under s. 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the ITO in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in cls. (a), (b) and (c) befo…

Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals Vijayawada vs. The Comi.of Incometax Vij

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

ITTA/31/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: :Sri AV KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri J.V.Prasad

Section 133Section 143Section 260Section 271

…m Commercial Enterprises Ltd.’s case (6 supra ) and after considering the decision in Manasvi’s case (14 supra ), held as follows: “In our opinion, the legal position 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 Income-Tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It can not be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified…

Sunil Dua vs. Income Tax

ITA/1492/2010HC Delhi29 Sept 2010

Section 132Section 132ASection 142Section 158BSection 260A

…ghtly concluded that it is not mandatory in law that a notice regarding levy of penalty needs to be issued along with the assessment order. In fact, the Supreme Court in D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT, 86 ITR 557 and Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Angidi Chettiar, 44 ITR 739 has held that issuance of a notice under Section 158BFA of the Act is a consequence of the satisfaction of the authority levying the penalty and it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Statute if the authority is satisfied about the material referred in the section during the course of the proceedings under the Act, even thou…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…estion no.1, the Delhi High Court in the impugned order dissented from the view taken by Madras High Court, reported as CIT v. C.R. Niranjan, 187 ITR 280 (Madras), CIT v. N. Krishnan, 240 ITR 47 (Ker.). Reference was made to CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar, 44 ITR 739 (SC) which referred to the expression "income tax" this judgment being under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West-Bengal, 44 ITR 6 (SC) referring to the expression "total income", CIT (Central) Delhi v. Harparshad & Co. P. Ltd., 99 ITR 118 (SC), again referring to…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Welcome Seeds Ltd

ITA/183/2001HC Delhi29 Jul 2005

…n avoided if the if the ITA 205.01etc Page No. 28 of 37 \\c '|i 6t" income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income." (emphasis added) When it wa.s argued before the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Madras v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar: 44 ITR 739 (SC) that use of the expression "any tax" meant that some tax must be payable before a penalty could be imposed, it repelled the same and held:- "The assumption that the expression "any tax" used in section 28 (1) is intended to indicate that there must be some tax payable by the assessee before penalty could be imposed is wholly unwaranted. The f…