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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery?

417 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 115JC, Section 142(1), Section 115JB.

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4)

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

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1388/PUN/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2001-02

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…

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

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1387/PUN/2006[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…

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

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1386/PUN/2006[99-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019

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…

Sandvik Asia Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 338/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.338/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Sandvik Asia Private Limited, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccs6638K बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-10, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-13, Pune Dated 22.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. This Is Appeal Where The Assessing Officer Made Assessment Determining The Total Income At Rs.Nil After Making Series Of Additions Which Are In Listed In Para 3 Of The Penalty Order (8 Additions).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

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

…ction recorded in the assessment order, we are of the opinion that the penalty order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. It is a fit case for invoking the ratio laid down by the 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. 6. Therefore, considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligatio…

Balbir Singh (HUF), Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1661/CHANDI/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1661/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1661/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/s Balbir Singh (HUF), The D.C.I.T., बनाम Prop.M/s Sohi Banquet Hall, Circle-1(1), H.No.10, Sector 3, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADHB4674A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri B.M.Monga, Adv. & Shri Rohit Kaura, Adv. राज…

ACIT Circle 1, Vellore vs. Chelliah Pillay Narayanan, Ranipet

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

ITA 375/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs Shri Chelliah Pillay Narayanan, The Acit, Circle – 1, 85-B, Phase – Ii, Vellore Sipcot Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore – 632 403. Pan: Aacpn2046D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs Shri Chelliah Pillay Narayanan, The ACIT, Circle – 1, 85-B, Phase – II, Vellore SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore – 632 403. PAN: AACPN2046D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respo…

M/S.Nishigandha Trading Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Porwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…e assessee on this technical issue by following the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & ors. (supra) However, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the subsequent decisions in the case of CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. – HC) has held that failure to state the limb in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would render the proceedings invalid. Similarly the Karnatka High court has laid the same ratio in CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka w…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…count of not recording of proper satisfaction, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable and for the aforesaid proposition, he also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, penalty of Rs.1,04,66,833/- has been levied on the alleged concealed income of Rs.3,48,89,443/-. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the A…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 885/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 884/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 883/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 882/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 881/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 880/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.880 To 885/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 Arvind Janardan Pandey, 22-C, Diamond Park, Park Street, Kalewadi Phata, Wakad, Pune-411057 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aarpp2115Q बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-8(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Arvind J. Pandey Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Six Appeals Under Consideration. All These Six Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In All These Six Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All These Six Appeals Are Common, The Appeal In Ita No.880/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind J. PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 561/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.558 & 561/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(4), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Nashik. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Pritesh Shah, G-3, Ground Floor, Baroda Street, Masjid (E), Mumbai-400009. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm8870C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Revenue. Both The Appeals Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Common, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue, There Is None To Represent The Assessee Despite The Service Of Notice By The Itat. Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr For The Revenue. 3. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, The Appeal In Ita No.558/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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 rightly restricted by the CIT(A). 10. Ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the assessment order and th…

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 558/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.558 & 561/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(4), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Nashik. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Pritesh Shah, G-3, Ground Floor, Baroda Street, Masjid (E), Mumbai-400009. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm8870C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Revenue. Both The Appeals Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Common, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue, There Is None To Represent The Assessee Despite The Service Of Notice By The Itat. Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr For The Revenue. 3. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, The Appeal In Ita No.558/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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 rightly restricted by the CIT(A). 10. Ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the assessment order and th…

Express Clinics Private Limited, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

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

…action was not clear in his mind about precise charge to be invoked for initiating penalty proceedings. The ld. AR submitted that in the light of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported as 359 ITR 565, penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand Shri Vishwas Mundhe representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that the Assess…

Rajendra Gaikwad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajendra Gaikwad, M/S. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aimpg7188F बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-8, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Vishwas Mandhe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 13.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Erred In Confirming The Validity Of The Notice Under Section 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Issued By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”). Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Appellant In This Respect. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Considering The Explanation & Legal

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mandhe

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

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. Highlighting 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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Suryakant V. Ambarwadikar, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2704/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Abhay Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2528/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

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

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

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

Sandvik Asia Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Balbir Singh (HUF), Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

ACIT Circle 1, Vellore vs. Chelliah Pillay Narayanan, Ranipet

M/S.Nishigandha Trading Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt.Ltd, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

Express Clinics Private Limited, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

Rajendra Gaikwad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Suryakant V. Ambarwadikar, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Abhay Nayan Bhalerao, Pune