CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.

285 ITR 295High Court2006#2928 most cited

What is CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. authority for?

Penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E are not justified if no regular assessment order has been framed; merely processing a return under Section 143(1)(a) is insufficient to initiate such penalty action.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. · 285 ITR 295 · Section 271D · Section 271E · penalty initiation · regular assessment · Section 143(1)(a) · Section 143(3) · assessment proceedings pending · invalid assessment

Also reported as

155 Taxmann 383

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269SSSection 271ESection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 153ASection 274Section 275

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271esection 245hsection 143(l)(a)section 261satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 275(1)section 269tsection 275section 275(1)(c)section 271esection 114(e)penalty under section 271d

Judgments citing CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

…1 ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. Ward-9(1), PIN -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. PAN BGHPS3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee by: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue by: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025…

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

…and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing in further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 8 Likhmaram, Mumbai. "Having heard the parties and having perused the material on record,…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…s. Young Men Christian Association, Madras, ITA Nos.1661, 2002 & 2003/MDS/ 2012, 111 DTR 77 (Mad.) (HC) 11 Hon'ble Delhi High Court Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT & Ors. (2000) 246 67-74 ITR 571 (Del) (HC) 12 Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 75-76 (Del.) (HC) 13 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam 77-78 Corporation 218 Taxman 136 (Guj.), 14 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s. CIT (2004) 79-83 265 ITR 25 (Cal.). 15 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Sh. Anil Sharma Versus The ITO, Ward-1 84-87 (3), Jaipur 2025 (3) TMI 212 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No.…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…s. Young Men Christian Association, Madras, ITA Nos.1661, 2002 & 2003/MDS/ 2012, 111 DTR 77 (Mad.) (HC) 11 Hon'ble Delhi High Court Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT & Ors. (2000) 246 67-74 ITR 571 (Del) (HC) 12 Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 75-76 (Del.) (HC) 13 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam 77-78 Corporation 218 Taxman 136 (Guj.), 14 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s. CIT (2004) 79-83 265 ITR 25 (Cal.). 15 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Sh. Anil Sharma Versus The ITO, Ward-1 84-87 (3), Jaipur 2025 (3) TMI 212 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No.…

MAHESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

…ions u/s 271AAC and again invoking penal provisions us 271D of the Act is not acceptable. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements PCIT vs. Aman Sharma [2023] 149 taxmann.com 377 (Punjab &Haryana)[31-01- 2023] CTT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Del)(IC) Bhalchandra P. Dalvi vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1526 (Mumbai - Trib.)(17- 01-2024] DIT (Exemptions), Chennai vs Young Men Christian Association [2014] 49 taxmann.com 72 (Madras) Bajrang Textiles vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 33 SOT S (Jodhpur)(URO)’’ Ld. AR of the assessee in order to support his contentions has…

MAHESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

…ions u/s 271AAC and again invoking penal provisions us 271D of the Act is not acceptable. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements PCIT vs. Aman Sharma [2023] 149 taxmann.com 377 (Punjab &Haryana)[31-01- 2023] CTT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Del)(IC) Bhalchandra P. Dalvi vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1526 (Mumbai - Trib.)(17- 01-2024] DIT (Exemptions), Chennai vs Young Men Christian Association [2014] 49 taxmann.com 72 (Madras) Bajrang Textiles vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 33 SOT S (Jodhpur)(URO)’’ Ld. AR of the assessee in order to support his contentions has…

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

…) Vijayaben G. Zalavadia v. JCIT [ITA No.458 463/Ahd/2020] dated 11.05.2022 iv) Pravin Nilkanth Barode v. ΙΠΟ [ΙΤΑ No. 371/Nagpur/2024] dated 20.12.2024 v) Shri Umakant Sharma v. JCIT [ITA No. 364/Indore/2022] dated 19.07.2023 vi) CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [285 ITR 295 (Del HC)] 16. He accordingly submitted that since the penalty is barred by limitation, the same is not sustainable. Even otherwise also, since the assessment proceedings have to be quashed on account of non-obtaining the approval from the prescribed competent authority, such assessment is a nullity and once the assessment order is invalid, the p…

TRENDSETTERS PROPMART PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, RANGE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 846/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Trendsetters Propmart Vs. Addl. Cit, Pvt Ltd, Range-25, New C/O. S-241, Basement, Delhi Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacct5284G Assessee By : Ms. Kanika Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…he very same money cannot be treated as loan simplicitor for the purpose of levying penalty u/s 271D read with Section 269SS of the Act. Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd reported in 285 ITR 295 (Del) and Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 571v (Del). 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act would have no legs to M/s. Trendsetters Propmart Pvt Ltd stand in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…bad Benches of the Tribunal has also observed and held as under: 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. Firstly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brand reported in 285 ITR 295 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. In our view, the requirement of 269SS is that the specified sum had been accepted by the assessee in cash which is prohibited by the…

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…bad Benches of the Tribunal has also observed and held as under: 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. Firstly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brand reported in 285 ITR 295 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. In our view, the requirement of 269SS is that the specified sum had been accepted by the assessee in cash which is prohibited by the…

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…bad Benches of the Tribunal has also observed and held as under: 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. Firstly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brand reported in 285 ITR 295 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. In our view, the requirement of 269SS is that the specified sum had been accepted by the assessee in cash which is prohibited by the…

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…bad Benches of the Tribunal has also observed and held as under: 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. Firstly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brand reported in 285 ITR 295 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. In our view, the requirement of 269SS is that the specified sum had been accepted by the assessee in cash which is prohibited by the…

BHALCHANDRA P. DALVI,GHAHTKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 27 (1) (2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. ITO-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, IT-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), NaviMumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. PAN/GIR No. : AAMPD3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.AR Respondent by : Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is file…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

…vision of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 does not apply to the facts of the case. He submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT v.Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 204 CTR (Del) 48 : (2006) 285 ITR 295 (Del). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is not a case of regular assessment of the assessee. The block assessment of undisclosed income for the block period was framed by the AO and the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was added as undisclosed income of the assessee for the financial year 1998-99. Once the amount in 8 M/s Plati…

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…12.2003 and the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271E of the Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Such notice was issued when there was no proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [20061 285 ITR 295/155 Taxman 383, the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 27IE were not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "Having heard the pa…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3