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

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.

DCIT CC RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vijay Grihnariman P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4366/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri D. Karunakara Raodcit- Central Circle-3(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Vijay Grihanirman Pvt Central Range-3, Ltd., 1, Tarlika, 216, Vs. Mumbai. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400019. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacv2806N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Mani Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue On 23.06.2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-51, Mumbai Dated 14.3.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In This Appeal, Revenue Raised Solitary Ground Relating To The Cit (A)’S Decision In Deleting The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The Act. At The Outset, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Is The Case Where The Penalty U/S 271D Was Levied When The Quantum Addition Was Undisputed. Relying On The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Standard Brands Ltd [2006] 285 Itr 295 (Delhi), Ld Counsel For The Assessee Demonstrated That The Said Judgment Is Relevant For The Legal Proposition That When The Addition Is Made U/S 269Ss Of The Act Is Confirmed, Revenue Could Not Resort To Proceedings U/S 271D Of The Act. Relying On The Said Legal Proposition, Cit (A) Granted Relief On This Issue & Therefore, The Revenue Is In Appeal. Before Us, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Relied On The Order Of The Cit (A) & Reiterated The Submissions Made Before The Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain
Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT- Central Circle-3(1), फनाभ/ M/s. Vijay Grihanirman Pvt Central Range-3, Ltd., 1, Tarlika, 216, Vs. Mumbai. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400019. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAACV2806N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Mani Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 30.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARU…