Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd.

333 ITR 565High Court2011#3475 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. authority for?

The date of issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for penalty is the relevant starting point for calculating the limitation period for passing penalty orders.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. · section 275(1)(c) · section 274(2) · penalty limitation period · show cause notice date · penalty order date · ACIT · commencement of limitation

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)Section 269SSSection 271ESection 269TSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 274(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)section 274(2)penalty under section 271esatisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 269tsection 275section 271epenalty under section 271dsection 269sssection 271dsection 271(l)(c)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd.

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…2017) wherein the Hon’ble HC addressed the issue of starting point of limitation, it was held - “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 565/[2009] 179 Taxman 309 (Delhi) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…2017) wherein the Hon’ble HC addressed the issue of starting point of limitation, it was held - “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 565/[2009] 179 Taxman 309 (Delhi) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…2017) wherein the Hon’ble HC addressed the issue of starting point of limitation, it was held - “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 565/[2009] 179 Taxman 309 (Delhi) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…2017) wherein the Hon’ble HC addressed the issue of starting point of limitation, it was held - “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 565/[2009] 179 Taxman 309 (Delhi) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th…

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

…(supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:— "7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income- tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Sunil Dandriyal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

…. (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:— "7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Sunil Dandrayal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

…. (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:— "7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/577/2018HC Delhi17 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

…re Not Verified ITA Nos. 577/2018, 580/2018 and 583/2018 Page 9 of 12 “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rupa Promoters Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/583/2018HC Delhi17 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

…re Not Verified ITA Nos. 577/2018, 580/2018 and 583/2018 Page 9 of 12 “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rishikesh Proparties Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/580/2018HC Delhi17 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

…re Not Verified ITA Nos. 577/2018, 580/2018 and 583/2018 Page 9 of 12 “7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barre…

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…e is placed by him and the decision in MDC University v. ACIT (2014) 161 TTJ 11 (JP-Trib-UO), PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Del), PCIT v. JKD Capital &Finlees Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Del), CIT v. Ikea Trading Hongkong Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 565 (Del). Referring to the above decisions and relying on them, the Ld. counsel submits that it was only when the JCIT received the letter from the ITO on 22.06.2012 that he became aware of the facts on the basis of which penalty could be imposed u/s 271C. This itself shows that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the ITO in terms of his lette…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…e is placed by him and the decision in MDC University v. ACIT (2014) 161 TTJ 11 (JP-Trib-UO), PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Del), PCIT v. JKD Capital &Finlees Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Del), CIT v. Ikea Trading Hongkong Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 565 (Del). Referring to the above decisions and relying on them, the Ld. counsel submits that it was only when the JCIT received the letter from the ITO on 22.06.2012 that he became aware of the facts on the basis of which penalty could be imposed u/s 271C. This itself shows that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the ITO in terms of his lette…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) - 2 vs. M/S Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/787/2016HC Delhi05 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 275(1)(c)

…ders were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565(Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th February, 2013 would…

Jotun India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) 1(3)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5184/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargjotun India Pvt. Ltd., 502, Vs. The Addl. Director Income- 5Th Floor, Boston House, Tax (It)-3, Room No.106, Suren Road, Behind Scindia House, N. Morarji Cinemax Theatre, Andheri Road, Ballard Pier, (East), Mumbai 400093 Mumbai 400001 Pan:Aabcj 6665J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. K. Veel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Jeevan Lal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15-07-2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Veel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal, DR
Section 201Section 263Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)

…s. The penalty order thus is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 275 (1) (c) of the Act. The learned AR of the assessee has also invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) Vs. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. [333 ITR 565 (Delhi) wherein under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 275 (1) of the Act relate to the cases where assessments, to which the proceedings for imposition of penalty relate, was the subject matter of an appeal before the higher authorities or was the subject matter of a revisio…