D.M. Manasvi v. CIT

86 ITR 557Supreme Court of India1972#3299 most cited

What is D.M. Manasvi v. CIT authority for?

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) can only be initiated if the Assessing Officer (AO) is satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in the relevant clauses during the assessment proceedings. This satisfaction must precede the conclusion of assessment proceedings and the issuance of a notice.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

D.M. Manasvi v. CIT · 86 ITR 557 · SC · section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · initiation of penalty · satisfaction of AO · assessment proceedings · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · S.V. Angidi Chettiar

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 276cdeletion of penaltypenalty proceedings initiatedsection 57(iii)section 244afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsappeal before cit(a)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)service of noticelevy of penaltysection 271(1)

Judgments citing D.M. Manasvi v. CIT

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

…the very jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings is not conferred on the assessing authority by reference to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT /1972] 86 ITR 557, wherein their Lordships have reiterated the view of the law taken in CIT v. S.V.Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739, 745, stated in the following terms : " The power to impose penalty under section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied abo…

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…the very jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings is not conferred on the assessing authority by reference to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557, wherein their Lordships have reiterated the view of the law taken in CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739, 745, stated in the following terms: " The power to impose penalty under section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied abo…

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…ome and also the charge whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. This issue has been deliberated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT reported in [19720 86 ITR 557 (SC) and there, it has been laid down that what is contemplated by section 271(1) of the Act is that the AO should have been satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings regarding matters mentioned in clause (a), (b) and/or (c) of section 271(1) of the Act. Thus, it is amply clear that the satisfaction should precede the issue of notice and t…

SAI HOMES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

ITA 578/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.578/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sai Homes, Vs. Acit, 310-313, Persipolis Cooperative Society, Panvel Circle, Plot No.74, Sector-17, Panvel Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705 Maharashtra Pan : Abafs3226K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…articulars of income is the satisfaction of the AO to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his 4 satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proce…

N K BUILDERS,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1056/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1056/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Nk Builders, A.C.I.T, Gf 11 Shri Rangam Resicom, Vs. Circle-3(1), New Karelibaug, Vadodara. Now D.C.I.T, Vadodara-390019. Circle 2(1)(1), Pan: Aalfn5553C Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri VK Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271BSection 271DSection 274Section 275

…s in CIT v. Sardar Amarjit Singh [1981] 132 ITR 365 (Delhi), CIT v. Rajinder Kumar Somani [1980] 125 ITR 756 (Delhi) and D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 17 (Guj.) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer could not have validly initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271B after the completion of the assessment proceedings for the years under consideration. It may not be necessary for the Assessing Officer to issue show cause notice under secti…

SHRI SHIVAJI DATTATRAY SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Store [2003] 263 ITR 484 (P&H) as held in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del). A bare reading of the provisions of sec.271 and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane Court in D. M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC) and CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 I.T.R. 739 (SC), makes it clear that it is the authority imposing the penalty which has to form its opinion and record its satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings. Merely because, the penalty proceedings have been initiated, it cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at i…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…itiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings. D.M. Manasvi Vs CIT (Supreme Court)86 ITR 557 12. On account of cumulative reasons as above, it is seen that penalty deserves to be levied in the case of the assessee to punish and reprimand the assessee from making such incorrect claims /declarations in the return of income. However, there is no compelling reason for levying penalty in excess of the minimum penalty to be levied in this case…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…itiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings. D.M. Manasvi Vs CIT (Supreme Court)86 ITR 557 12. On account of cumulative reasons as above, it is seen that penalty deserves to be levied in the case of the assessee to punish and reprimand the assessee from making such incorrect claims /declarations in the return of income. However, there is no compelling reason for levying penalty in excess of the minimum penalty to be levied in this case…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…itiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings. D.M. Manasvi Vs CIT (Supreme Court)86 ITR 557 12. On account of cumulative reasons as above, it is seen that penalty deserves to be levied in the case of the assessee to punish and reprimand the assessee from making such incorrect claims /declarations in the return of income. However, there is no compelling reason for levying penalty in excess of the minimum penalty to be levied in this case…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…itiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings. D.M. Manasvi Vs CIT (Supreme Court)86 ITR 557 12. On account of cumulative reasons as above, it is seen that penalty deserves to be levied in the case of the assessee to punish and reprimand the assessee from making such incorrect claims /declarations in the return of income. However, there is no compelling reason for levying penalty in excess of the minimum penalty to be levied in this case…

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…section (1) of Section 271. The notice under Section 274 was to follow. What was important was that satisfaction had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under Section 274 of the Act. (See D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 and and S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739. A bare reading of the aforesaid extract from Rampur Engineering (supra) would show that the Full Bench: (i) applied the law, as it ought to, as declared in D.M. Manasvi (supra) and S.V. Angidi Chettiar (supra)WP(C) No. 5059-2008 Page 49 of 64 (ii) a fortiori the principle for initiation of penalty pr…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…ompetent authority to levy the penalty is Joint Commissioner, therefore, only the Joint Commissioner can initiate proceeding for levy of penalty. 12. Insofar as the judgment of the Apex Court in D.M.Manasvi V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, [1972] 86 ITR 557 is concerned, that was a case, where penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(C) and as is evident from the provision itself, the proceedings under that Section are to be initiated on the basis of the satisfaction of the officers mentioned therein including the Assessing Officer. Unlike the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), under the provisions of S…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…ompetent authority to levy the penalty is Joint Commissioner, therefore, only the Joint Commissioner can initiate proceeding for levy of penalty. 12. Insofar as the judgment of the Apex Court in D.M.Manasvi V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, [1972] 86 ITR 557 is concerned, that was a case, where penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(C) and as is evident from the provision itself, the proceedings under that Section are to be initiated on the basis of the satisfaction of the officers mentioned therein including the Assessing Officer. Unlike the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), under the provisions of S…

M/S. CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted

ITA 1387/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 10Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

…tion 271(IB) vide passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r/w 144 dated 24.02.2014 and hence, the entire proceedings are required to be quashed. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of D.M. Manasi reported in 86 ITR 557 wherein it was held that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived at in the course of any proceedings under this Act. Further, reliance…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

MAITREYA PLOTTERS & STRUCTURES P.LTD,PALGHAR vs. DCIT CIR 4, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1254/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Maitreya Plotters & Structures The C.I.T. (Appeals)-3, Pvt. Ltd., A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Pt. Din Dayal Nagar, Park, Road 16Z, Vasai (West), Palghar - 401302 Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan: Aafcm9944B Thane - 400604 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 271Section 68

…shed in the assessment proceedings as the appellant failed to prove the onus that cash credit recorded in the books of accounts is genuine. Therefore, it is not required to specifically mention in the notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. ii) D.M. Manasvi 86 ITR 557 (SC) held that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived at in the course of any proceeding under the Act. Therefore, in the case of the…

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…section (1) of Section 271. The notice under Section 274 was to follow. What was important was that satisfaction had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under Section 274 of the Act. (See D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 and and S. V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739. A bare reading of the aforesaid extract from Rampur Engineering (supra) would show that the Full Bench: (i) applied the law, as it ought to, as declared in D.M. Manasvi (supra) and S. V. AngidiChettiar (supra)WP(C) No. 5059-2008 Page 49 of 64 (ii) a fortiori the principle for initiation of penalty pr…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (86 ITR 557) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax