How many judgments cite CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals?

149 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (335 ITR 259), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

335 ITR 259High Court2011#668 most cited

What is CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals authority for?

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed if the amount of tax sought to be evaded is nil under Explanation 4(c), such as when the assessment results in a refund even after an addition to income. The conditions stipulated in the explanations to section 271(1)(c) must be unambiguously met for penalty imposition.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals · section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 4(c) · penalty for concealment · furnishing inaccurate particulars · tax sought to be evaded · nil tax liability · assessment refund · survey action

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 115BBE Section 69 Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

surrender of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 section 271(1)section 133a levy of penalty section 271 section 133

Judgments citing CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

Laxmi Narayan Saini, Sikandra vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 478/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sclose. The duty to disclose income arises only at the time when the assessee furnish return of income. If assessee furnishes return of income including income offered during survey then there remains no undisclosed income b. CIT Vs. SAS Pharmceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Delhi HC) ".........We, thus, answer the questions as formulated above, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue finding no fault with the decisions of the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. As a result, this appeal is dismissed” In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that penal provisions are applicable unless otherwise specified w…

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Sikandara vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

ITA 477/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…close. The duty to disclose income arises only at the time when the assessee furnish return of income. If assessee furnishes return of income including income offered during survey then there remains no undisclosed income b. CIT Vs. SAS Pharmceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Delhi HC) "………We, thus, answer the questions as formulated above, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue finding no fault with the decisions of the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. As a result, this appeal is dismissed” In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that penal provisions are applicable unless otherwise specified w r t re…

Haresh Ghashyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 2904 & 2906/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija ITO, Ward 2(2) 601, Gaurav Luxury, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 Opp. Lal Pathaogy, Vs. Near Balaji Medical Store, Ulhasnagar – 421 001 PAN/GIR No. BBFPM 1623 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Manisha Ghind Respondent by : Shri P D Chougule Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex…

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

DCIT-Circle-1(1), Hubli, C.R. Building, Navanagar Hubli vs. Shri Chandrashekhar Kommi, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 753/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…any allegation of concealment of income by the assessee. In that view of the matter, ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal relying upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in (2011) 355 ITR 259 (Delhi) as the crux of the submissions made by the ld. A.R. 4. We have heard the rival submissions mad by the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. Admittedly, we find that while finalizing the assessment order, the ld. AO recorded furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of work Shri Chandrashekha…

Meera Anirudha Mirgunde, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 550/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…er raised by the Revenue and without there being any charge of furnishing inaccurate particular of income and concealment of income, the AO levied penalty. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Del), Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Armoury International Pereira Compound in ITA Nos. 3299, 3300 & 3301/Mum/2017, Delhi Tribunal in the case of Meeta Gutgutia in ITA No. 327/Del/2014 and argued that unless it is found the actual concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. 5. The ld. DR reli…

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ng inaccurate particulars of income particularly when the assessee did not claim any refund of the advance tax paid on such income……. …………….. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceutical 335 ITR 259 (Del.) (compilation of case law 24-37) has also considered this aspect and held in para 12 to 16 as under :- “12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee has to prevail as it carried substantial weight. It is to be kept in min…

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 968/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Shri Suresh Mal Lodha The ACIT 75, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines Vs. Circle-6 Jaipur – 302 006 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGPL 0612 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahenda Gargieya, Advocate Shri Devang…

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…o cases, relied upon by the assessee, search was conducted before 01.06.2007, and Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), has no application. Therefore the decisions have no application at all to the instant case. 5. M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals, Delhi high Court, 335 ITR 259(Del) n the instant case penalty is being upheld in light of the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), applicable specifically in 4 VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA VS ACIT, CC-1, UDAIPUR cases where a search has been conducted. However, in the case relied upon by the assessee there was no search, only a survey operation, therefore the…

Shri Dattatrya Jagannath Aware, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 620/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…loskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 594 & 595/PUN/2019 for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide order dated 23-08-2022, wherein this Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) deleted the penalty therein by holding no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is made out by the authorities as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the revised return of income and offering the additional amount for the purpose of tax. We note that the facts and circumstances in the case of Kirl…

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arun Sankhwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9856/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e invoked. The penalty proceedings are initiated with reference to the tax sought to be evaded which is the difference between the Income return and the Income assessed by the A.O. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceutical (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del), held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can only be levied if in the course of the proceedings, the A.O. is satisfied that there is a concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The words ‘in the course of any proceedings under this Act mean the assessment proceedings.’ However, the question ‘whether there is concealment 4…

ACIT, Circle-3, Pune vs. Gokhale Construction, Erandwana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1866/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…16 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals, 335 ITR 259 (Delhi), CIT vs. Mohan Das Hassa Nand, 141 ITR 203 (Delhi) and the decision of 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that the levy of penalty was not justified in view of the fact that the penalty has to be levied only with reference to the return of income filed by the assessee. Since the income…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. M/S. Shree Stampings, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 579/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri M. J. Jasnani

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

…income. Since there is no change between the returned income and assessed income, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals (supra) involving the identical facts held that no penalty could be imposed as there was no concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the return of income and offered the additional amount for the purpose of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 8, Pune vs. M/S. Shree Electricals, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 578/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri M. J. Jasnani

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

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 595/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.594 & 595/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range-11, Pune. 8Th Floor, Cello Platina, Fergusson College Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. Pan : Aabck1730B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.594/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

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

…d before us that there is no variation between the returned income and assessed income, therefore, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the assessee had filed revised return of income only after detection of concealed income during the course of survey proceedings and, therefore, the fact that the assessee disclosed the additional income by filing the revised return of income does not absolve the appellant from the penalty pr…

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 594/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 8, Pune vs. M/S. N.D. Constructions, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 575/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.575/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cricle-8, Pune. M/S.N.D.Constructions, Vs Shop No.19/20, N.B.Arcase, Near Pcmc School, Main Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411035. Pan: Aagfn 6366 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurab Bora –Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 09.03.2020 Arising Out Of Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts & In The Law. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 1,18,96,500/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271(L)(C) Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 3. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Ignoring The Fact That The Assessor Has Concealed Income Which Was Subsequently Unearthed In Survey Action. 4. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Ignoring The Fact

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ng of inaccurate particulars, but in this case, there is neither concealment of income as Returned Income has been accepted by the AO, nor filing of inaccurate particulars. 4.1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) held as under: Quote “ 14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue relying upon the expression 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' occurring in subsection (1) of section 271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the assessee had concealed the parti…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune vs. Tirupati Construction, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 743/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S.Tirupati Construction, Commissioner Of Income- Vs A/23, Geeta Complex, Tax, Circle-7, Pune. Kasturba Housing Society, Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aacft 7552 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri M.R.Shirude – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Pune For The A.Y. 2015-16 Dated 22.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,96,82,300/-. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified To Hold That The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Not Justified, Despite The Fact That Had The Case Of Assessee Not Been Covered Under Survey Action, He Neither Would Have Declared The Additional Income Of Rs.8,73,26,560/- Nor Would Have Filed Return Of Income Declaring The Said Income.

Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…rate particulars but in this case, there is neither concealment of income as Returned Income has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, nor filing of inaccurate particulars. 4.1. The Hon’bleDelhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) held as under: Quote “ 14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue relying upon the expression 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' occurring in subsection (1) of section 271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the assessee had concealed the parti…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Ms. Minu Bakshi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2021HC Delhi12 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 164Section 271(1)(c)

…specifically fulfilled. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. While considering the interpretation of this provision, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del), stated that: “It is to be kept in mind that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Subsection (1) of Section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Rich India Housing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3223/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 The ACIT, M/s. Rich India Housing Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), v. Ltd., Chennai – 34. No.16/19, Subramania Nagar, 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai -600 024. PAN: AAFCR 4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/…