CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4High Court2017#175 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

417

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samson Perinchery · 392 ITR 4 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty initiated on one limb · penalty levied on other limb · vague penalty notice · penalty unsustainable · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 115JCSection 142(1)Section 115JBSection 143Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsmalabar industrialsection 274penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)non-application of mindlevy of penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Rahul Cables Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 986/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.985 & 986/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shanthu ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri D.Ghosh and Shri Abhijit Haldar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.985 & 986/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rahul Cables Private Limited, Office No.114/115, Aurora Towers, ………. अपीलाथ" / M.G. Road, Camp, Appellant Pune – 411 001. Maharashtra. PAN : AABCR4218B. बनाम v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Circle – 5, Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shanthu Paranjape Revenue by : Shri D.Ghosh and Shri Abhijit Haldar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क…

Rahul Cables Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 985/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.985 & 986/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shanthu ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri D.Ghosh and Shri Abhijit Haldar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.985 & 986/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rahul Cables Private Limited, Office No.114/115, Aurora Towers, ………. अपीलाथ" / M.G. Road, Camp, Appellant Pune – 411 001. Maharashtra. PAN : AABCR4218B. बनाम v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Circle – 5, Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shanthu Paranjape Revenue by : Shri D.Ghosh and Shri Abhijit Haldar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क…

Kalpesh B Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4282/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanshri Kalpeshb. Jain; C/O. M/S. Rajasthan Corpn., No.62/63, Vithalwadi, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai400002, Pan:Afhpj 5722Q ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer -14(1)(2), Mumbai ..... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.M.Porwal Respondent By : Shri V.Justin Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri N.M.PorwalFor Respondent: Shri V.Justin
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri KalpeshB. Jain; C/o. M/s. Rajasthan Corpn., No.62/63, Vithalwadi, 2nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai400002, PAN:AFHPJ 5722Q ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer -14(1)(2), Mumbai ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri N.M.Porwal Respondent by : Shri V.Justin Date of hearing : 16/10/2019 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2019 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) - 29, Mumbai dated 11/03/2015 confirming l…

Envision Investment Consultants, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Cir 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2896/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ing cases: “a)CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows(SC) (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka – SLP dismissed as reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) b) CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) c) CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) d) CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. – HC)” 10. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee…

Nitin Desai & Sandeep Shirke Associates, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 26 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarnitin Desai & Sandeep Shirke Associates, 201-A, Central Avenue, Ventura Shopping Center, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan:Aajfn1544R ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-26(2) Mumbai ..... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Shri Devendra Jain Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nitin Desai & Sandeep Shirke Associates, 201-A, Central Avenue, Ventura Shopping Center, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 PAN:AAJFN1544R ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT-26(2) Mumbai ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Shri Devendra Jain Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Date of hearing : 18/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 17/10/2019 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) - 38, Mumbai dated 20/02/2018 for the assessme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Kshitij Associates, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1190/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2009-10 The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. ………. अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम v/s M/s. Kshitiji Associates, ………. ""यथ" / B-75, Anugraha Co-op Housing, Respondent Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Pimpiri, Pune. PAN : AAIFK1377L. ""या"ेप सं. / CO No.15/PUN/2019 (Arising out of ITA No1190/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Kshitiji Associates, B-75, Anugraha Co-op Ho…

Shri Anil Bafna, Nagpur vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 535/Nag/2014 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Anil Dalpatmal Bafna, Flat No.606, Rachana Yuthika Apartment, After Postal Colony, Amrawati Road, Nagpur-440033. Pan : Aespb0883J .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari
Section 271(1)(c)

…t derived proper satisfaction as to which limb; the penalty has to be levied on the assessee. For this proposition, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the view of Karnataka High Court in the 3 A.Y.2010-11 case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565(Kar.) wherein it was observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held in T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT reported as 292 ITR 11 (SC) that act of ‘concealment of inc…

M/S. Civitech Housing India (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 481/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:- 481/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Civitech Housing India (P.) Ltd., 65, Shrestha Vihar, Delhi-110092. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aabcc1465B Vs Acit, Circle-6(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee, the levy of the penalty in this circumstances is not justified. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Applying the said ratio, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of October, 2019. (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सदःय लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय "याियक सदःय "याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER "…

M/S Chl Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:- 327/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Chl Ltd., Hotel Crown Plaza, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacc2587M Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh.Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee, the levy of the penalty in this circumstances is not justified. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Applying the said ratio, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of October, 2019. (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सदःय लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय "याियक सदःय "याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER "…

M/S. Etisha Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:- 1585/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Etisha Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., 4380/4-B, Ansari Raod, Kaushalaya Building, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaace1803C Vs Acit, Central Circle-11, …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110055. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ू"यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee, the levy of the penalty in this circumstances is not justified. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Applying the said ratio, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of October, 2019. (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सदःय लेखा सदःय लेखा सदःय "याियक सदःय "याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER "…

Jm Financial Limited (Formerly Known As J M Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT -4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2870/MUM/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…f the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 20.3.2014. This issue is now settled in favour of the assessee by the following decisions, among others :- a) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perichery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom). b) Decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and others reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar). c) Decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs SSA‟S Emerald Meadows in ITA No. 380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015. Special Leave Petition preferred by the revenue before the Hon‟ble S…

Kalwan Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1352/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

…alty is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and had levied penalty on both the limbs. He therefore, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) submitted that in the absence of proper show cause notice to assessee, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and therefore urged that penalty levied by AO be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case…

Neia Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2475/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarneia Trust, “Nirmal”, 5Th Floor, 241/242, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 012. Pan:Aaatn 9999F ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax - (Exemption)2(1), Room No.510, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai -400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji Respondent By : Shri Santuru Kumar Saika Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Santuru Kumar Saika
Section 11Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…or which penalty proceedings are initiated is one of the mandatory condition for levy of penalty (CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565(Kar).). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4(Bom) has held that penalty cannot be levied on a charge other than for which satisfaction has been recorded. The relevant extract of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reads as under:- “6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[2007] 292 ITR 11/161 T…

Pawan Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5379/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K.Billaiya

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AOFor Respondent: Sh.C.P.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tion of penalty proceedings. In the absence of the same, there is no merit in the penalty order passed in the case. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). 7. Another aspect which needs to be kept in mind is the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO had levied the penalty both for concealment of the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The AO thus failed to come to any conclusion as to which limb of the said section has not been fulfilled by the…

Kalavati Hanumandas Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule

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

ITA 1323/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…with the initiation and levy of penalty. In view of the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 13. Therefore, considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of…

Vision Infpro (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…g the specific charge in the notice initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income in the Assessment Order and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and also various decisions held that action of the Assessing Officer in non-striking off relevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee is not firm therefore proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Officer himself is not sure of the charge and 4 ITA.…

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Range-1, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 926/PUN/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer suffers from the ambiguity. The ld. Counsel relied on the various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, copies of which are placed on record. Further, ld. Counsel for the assesse also filed a copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil vs. DCIT for the asse…

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Range-1, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 925/PUN/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer suffers from the ambiguity. The ld. Counsel relied on the various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, copies of which are placed on record. Further, ld. Counsel for the assesse also filed a copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil vs. DCIT for the asse…

DCIT Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 151/PUN/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer suffers from the ambiguity. The ld. Counsel relied on the various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, copies of which are placed on record. Further, ld. Counsel for the assesse also filed a copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil vs. DCIT for the asse…

DCIT Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 150/PUN/2007[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hat the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer suffers from the ambiguity. The ld. Counsel relied on the various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, copies of which are placed on record. Further, ld. Counsel for the assesse also filed a copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil vs. DCIT for the asse…