CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.

285 ITR 295High Court2006#2888 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 366,339 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Bapu Reddy Jala, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 153ASection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

…arise where the facts would be different but the same has no relevance to the case at hand. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to Costs. 6.2 Further, in CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 295 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that once the Revenue took a stand that the income was undisclosed A.Y 2019-20 income in the hands of the assessee, it could not resort to proceedings u/s. Z69SS r.w.s. 271D of the Act. The relevant portion of the ratio is reproduced below: "8. On these facts, we are of the view that the Revenue could not, o…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)
Section 269S

…ision 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 A0 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 question is…

The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Guntur vs. Sri G.V.S.L. Kantha Rao, Guntur

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/VIZ/2017[1995-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2018AY 1995-2002

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Block Assessment Period: 1995-2002) The Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri G.V.S.L.Kantha Rao Income-Tax S/O Grandhi Subba Rao Circle-1(1) D.No.2507011, 3Rd Lane Guntur Ramanamakshetram Guntur [Pan :Ahepg4370L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2018 20 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.Appala Raju, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 132Section 271DSection 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Block Assessment Period: 1995-2002) The Asst.Commissioner of Vs. Sri G.V.S.L.Kantha Rao Income-Tax S/o Grandhi Subba Rao Circle-1(1) D.No.2507011, 3rd Lane Guntur Ramanamakshetram Guntur [PAN :AHEPG4370L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant b…