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 366,470 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

Delux Polymers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.165/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ M/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-33 Ltd. 11/12 Raghuvanshi Mill (Passing The Original Order) Vs. Compound, Lower Parel, Dy. Cit (C.C.5(3) Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd4132B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Salil Kapoor Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani & SalilFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

…nt of concealment of income which is wrong against law and facts, therefore, on account of defective notice no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com, CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay), Samson Perinchery Vs. ACIT ITA. 4624-4630/M/2013 & Maherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA. No. 1596/M/2014. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order passed by the authority below, ITA. No.165/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 we noticed that the assesse…

Abdulwaris Chandsab Shaikh, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2340/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2340/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Yogita Badgujar, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on technical

ITA 2151/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2150/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal de…

Gulab Badgujar, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on technical

ITA 2150/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2150/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal de…

Smt. Sadhana Sunil Jain, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2094/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…e penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4960/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Bleito-17(3)(3), Vs. Shree Mangal Associates, 802B, 8Th Floor, Grande Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 123, 1St Floor, M.K. Road, Palladium, Near Mercedes Mumbai –400 020 Showroom, 175, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan No. Abifs 0355 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80I

…out the charge, hence, initiation of penalty against the assessee is bad in law. For that, assessee has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.O.No. 292/MUM/2017 (Shree Mangal Associates) the CIT vs. Samson Perinchery[(2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.)], wherein it was held as under:- “6. The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent-Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of i…

Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2304/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2304/Pun/2014 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 127Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 40A(2)(b)Section 50C

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he 4 Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order…

Dhananjay Hari Gadgil vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/PUN/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng which the penalty was initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

M/S. Kalpana Glass Fibre Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1403/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1403/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: None (written submission)
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…plicability of specific limb. There is no harmony between the initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of levying the penalty. Therefore, we are of the opinion that considering 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, such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. The judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High…

Dalichand H. Oswal (Jain), Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2015 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Ganoo
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Sakal Paper Ltd vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 348/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok N. KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…rticulars of income, shows that there was ambiguity in the mind of AO with respect to charge for which the penalty is to be levied. 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. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case…

Ramchandra Dada Shinde, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2461/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

M/S. Namrata City Centre, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2450/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2449 & 2450/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dings were initiated. Highlighting the M/s. Namrata City Centre legal requirement of making a specific reference to of the limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal d…

M/S. Namrata City Centre, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2449/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2449 & 2450/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dings were initiated. Highlighting the M/s. Namrata City Centre legal requirement of making a specific reference to of the limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal d…

Dhananjay Hari Gadgil vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng which the penalty was initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Dhananjay Hari Gadgil vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng which the penalty was initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Dhananjay Hari Gadgil vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/PUN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng which the penalty was initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Dhananjay Hari Gadgil vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng which the penalty was initiated. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal def…

Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ve held that where there is ambiguity in recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 (Bom); ii. CIT Vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC); iii. CIT Vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka); iv. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka); v. Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 1201 to 1205/PN/2014 for assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08 decided on 30-11-2016; vi. M/…

Jain Promoter and Builders, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1101/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "ायपीठ “SMC” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE "ी डी राव, लेखा सद" के सम" डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1101/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Jain Promoters and Builders, 82-A, East Street Galleria, Camp, Pune PAN : AADFJ8056G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune ……""थ" / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 15.0…