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 367,154 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

Indrajeet Rajkumar Kharde, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income while imposing penalty. This exercise is not at all warranted in the realm of income-tax proceedings. The jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) has held that the A.O is under obligation to satisfy the appropriate limb of section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation of levy of penalty. We have also observed that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is ambiguous and that the A.O has not arrived at satisfaction as to which limb of the provision he is levying the penalty. The A.…

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2584/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Sri C. Aswathanarayana, S/o Chikkappaiah, 639, Sulebele Main Road, ACIT, Vs. Devanahalli, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore 562 110. Bangalore. PAN NO : ADZPC9837F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R PER BEENA, PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeals has bee…

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2583/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Sri C. Aswathanarayana, S/o Chikkappaiah, 639, Sulebele Main Road, ACIT, Vs. Devanahalli, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore 562 110. Bangalore. PAN NO : ADZPC9837F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R PER BEENA, PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeals has bee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

ITA 2296/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…9-10 & 2010-11 6. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are of the considered view that, the show cause notice served u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without specifying any limb or charge, is invalid and untenable in the eyes of law, consequently the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being bad in law and quashed accordingly. 7.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

ITA 2295/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…9-10 & 2010-11 6. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are of the considered view that, the show cause notice served u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without specifying any limb or charge, is invalid and untenable in the eyes of law, consequently the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being bad in law and quashed accordingly. 7.…

Arvind Janardan Pandey, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/PUN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income while imposing penalty. This exercise is not at all warranted in the realm of income-tax proceedings. The jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) has held that the A.O is under obligation to satisfy the appropriate limb of section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation of levy of penalty. We have also observed that on the same reasons for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11 in respect of the assessee, penalty proceedings were quashed. We have also observed that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of…

Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

ITA 991/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 991/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Shree Tyres Mrf, Samrat Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur - 413512 Pan :Aevpg3770N . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Latur. . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :16/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appellant Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad [Forshort “Cit(A)”] Dt.07/05/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Originated From The Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt 29/06/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…is reflective of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Further, it is also noticeable that such proposition has been considered by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4(BHC), and “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported in 434 ITR 1 wherein it is categorically held that, “No notice could be issued under Section 274, read with Section 271(1)(c), of the IT Act without indicating which particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked for initiating the penalty proceedings.” 7.7 To demonstrate the voice of non-appli…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik vs. Ganesh Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nashik

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 168/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 .......अपऩलधथी /Appellant Ito, Ward -1(1), Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Parmod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t is a settled legal proposition that the AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment in the case CIT vs. Shri. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4(Bom) as well as CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits' of the penalty, we are of the opinion that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on this legal issue. 5.5 In the case of Mohan Pralhad Patil V/s. Dy. CIT Circle-2, Jalgaon bearing ITA No.202/P…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. ∂ In PCIT vs. State Bank of India (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bombay), it was held as follows: 8. The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had pos…

Pvp Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.778/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. PVP Ventures Ltd. DCIT बनाम/ 9th Floor, KRM Centre, Corporate Circle-5(2), Vs. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACS-3101-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.R ""…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद< के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.905/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.906/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.907/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.908/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.909/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Ass…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद< के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.905/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.906/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.907/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.908/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.909/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Ass…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद< के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.905/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.906/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.907/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.908/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.909/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Ass…

Shri Mahaveerchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC4(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद< के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.905/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.906/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.907/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.908/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.909/Chny/2020 (िनधाDरणवषD / Ass…