CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited

269 CTR 444High Court2014#7588 most cited

What is CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited authority for?

The date on which the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order in quantum proceedings is irrelevant to determining the limitation period for penalty proceedings under section 275(1)(c). The relevant date for limitation purposes under section 275(1)(c) is the date on which notice in relation to the penalty proceedings was issued.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited · section 275(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · limitation period · Commissioner (Appeals) order · quantum proceedings · notice date · section 271E

Also reported as

229 Taxmann 560

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 269tsection 269ssection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 275deletion of penaltysection 269sssection 271d

Judgments citing CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…y order passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27 th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1346/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…y order passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27 th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1345/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…y order passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27 th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271…

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…falls after the limitation expired on date 31-03-2019. Our reliance is placed on principle decided in following judicial pronouncements : PCIT vs JKD CAPITAL AND FINLEASE LTD. ( 2015) 378 ITR 0614 (Delhi HC) CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444 (Delhi HC). 1.6 Under the circumstances, It is proved herein above that impugned penalty order dated 28-06-2019 u/s 271(1)(c) is barred by limitation, so, it is humbly pray the Hon’ble Bench to quash such barred by limitation penalty order and allow this ground of appeal. Ground no. 2 2. The Ld CIT(A)-2, Udaipur erred in charging the penalty of R…

Asstt. CIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Palava Dwellers P. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd., Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Mumbai, (Earlier Known As M/S Palava Room No. 655, Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Vardhan Chambers, Mumbai - 400020 Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (DR)
Section 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of M/s Macrotech Developers Ltd., Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai, (Earlier known as M/s Palava Room No. 655, Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Vardhan Chambers, Mumbai - 400020 Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AABCL1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Mehul Jain (DR) Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth (AR) Date of Hearing : 21/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 O R D…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Sri Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3037/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income [Successor to Sahjananad Hi tech Tax, Cen Cir 7(3), Construction Private Limited] Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 412, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, 020 Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAECP1936F Assessee by : Sri Niraj Seth, AR Department by : Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 01.03.2022 Date…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Sri Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3037/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income [Successor to Sahjananad Hi tech Tax, Cen Cir 7(3), Construction Private Limited] Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 412, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, 020 Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAECP1936F Assessee by : Sri Niraj Seth, AR Department by : Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 01.03.2022 Date…

DCIT (CC) 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Bellissimo Cown Buildmart P. Ltd, Mumbai

1. 3038/Mum/2019 2014-15

ITA 3038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DCIT(CC)7(3) Vs. M/s. Macrotech Developers Room No.655, 6th Floor Ltd., (successor to M/s. Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Buildmart M.K.Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 412, Vardhaman Chamber Cawasji Patel Road Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 011 PAN/GIR No. AABCL3059L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT(CC)7(3) Vs. M/s. Macrotech Developers Room No.655, 6th Floor Ltd., (successor to M/s. Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders M.K.Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3050/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 ) D.C.I.T, Cc-7(3), M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. 412, Vardhman Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan No. Aabcl1117D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Neraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 12.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range-7, Mumbai (For Short ―Addl. Cit‖) Under Sec. 271D & Sec. 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ―Act‖), Dated 29.06.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. As The Issues Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals Are Interwoven Or In Fact Intertwined, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: ―1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon‘Ble Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.1,99,68,616/- U/S 271D Holding That There Was Reasonable Cause U/S 273B For Entering On Transaction To Transaction Basis In The Given Case For The Existence Of Reasonable Cause U/S 273B Which Led To The Exigency Of Contravention Of Provisions Of Sections 269Ss/St.

For Appellant: Shri Neraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

…ITA Nos. 3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 1 DCIT,CC-7(3) Vs. M/s Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.3050 & 3051/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 ) D.C.I.T, CC-7(3), M/s Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Vs. 412, Vardhman Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN No. AABCL1117D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Neraj Sheth, A.R Revenue by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R D…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Macrotech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1415/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DCIT, Central Corcle-7(3) Vs. M/s. Macrotech Developers Room No.655, 6th Floor Limited (Successor to Macrotech Aayakar Bhavan Construction Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Road, 216, Shah and Nahar Industrial Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Off. Dr. E.Moses Road Worli, Mumbai-400 018 PAN/GIR No.AAACM6092K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Dr. R. Madhavi Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing 01/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3178/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…Court refused to interfere with the adjudication of the ITAT wherein the ITAT had confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) by referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Worldwide Township Projects Ltd reported in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rupa Promoters Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3171/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…Court refused to interfere with the adjudication of the ITAT wherein the ITAT had confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) by referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Worldwide Township Projects Ltd reported in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3150/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…Court refused to interfere with the adjudication of the ITAT wherein the ITAT had confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) by referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Worldwide Township Projects Ltd reported in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5 vs. Jkd Capital & Finlease Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/780/2015HC Delhi13 Oct 2015
Section 260ASection 269TSection 271Section 275

…der passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the 2015:DHC:8619-DB ITA 780/2015 Page 3 of 6 quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Reve…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5 vs. Jkd Capital & Finlease Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-780/2015HC Delhi13 Oct 2015
Section 260ASection 269TSection 271Section 275

…der passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the 2015:DHC:8619-DB ITA 780/2015 Page 3 of 6 quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Reve…

CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (269 CTR 444) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax