Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

379 ITR 100High Court2015#4933 most cited

What is Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Grihalakshmi Vision v. ACIT · section 271D · section 271DA · section 269SS · penalty proceedings · satisfaction of AO · limitation · show cause notice

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 275(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 269SSSection 271DSection 132Section 269STSection 271DA

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 271dasection 269stsection 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271dsection 275(1)section 275section 269tsection 271dsection 271esection 269section 3(1)

Judgments citing Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1257/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS is the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act, is relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. Th…

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1256/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS is the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act, is relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. Th…

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1255/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS is the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act, is relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. Th…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act for violation of section 269ST is the Jt. Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos 2164 2165 2171 and 2172 MSN Laboratories P Ltd Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on which the authority imposing penalty issued a show cause notice under section 2…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision VS. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act for violation of section 269ST is the Jt. Page 13 of 33 Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on which the authority imposing penalty issued a show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271DA of the Act is relevant for the purpose of…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act for violation of section 269ST is the Jt. Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos 2164 2165 2171 and 2172 MSN Laboratories P Ltd Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on which the authority imposing penalty issued a show cause notice under section 2…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 2164/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

…limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision VS. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act for violation of section 269ST is the Jt. Page 13 of 33 Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on which the authority imposing penalty issued a show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271DA of the Act is relevant for the purpose of…

HARI KRISHNA LEELA PRASAD PALADUGU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 798/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…equirement of satisfaction from the A.O. before initiation of penalty proceedings is contrary to the law and cannot be accepted. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision Vs. ACIT [2015] 379 ITR 100 (Kerala). 12. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant case laws relied upon by both parties in support of their contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue have a…

VERAMBALLY THAZHIKUNIYIL VINODAN,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

ITA 350/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274

…to the provisions of section 269SS. Therefore, the assessee was forced to accept the balance consideration in cash, however, Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Grihalaxmi Vision vs. Addl. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 100 (Ker.) held that penalty proceedings initiated by the JCIT are well within the time. Accordingly, upheld the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that ignorance does not constitute reasonable cause. Accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in t…

SUBRAMANYAN HARIKUMAR,PALKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 711/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subramanyan Harikumar .......... Appellant 29/58-4, 42/409-I, Mania, M.G. Road Karnaki Nagar, Palakkad 678001 [Pan: Achph7765A] Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678014 Appellant By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…ted that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the JCIT as the show cause notice was issued by him. In this connection she also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision v. Addl. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 100. Further, she submits that there is a clear violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In the absence of any reasonable cause for violation of provisions of section 269SS, the penalty is exigible, no interference in the orders of the lower authorities is called for. 4 Subramanyan Harikumar 8. We have heard the rival contentions of bot…

M/S.KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ere caused to be initiated, or30.06.2018. The later of the two dates, i.e., 30/6/2018, would be the limitation date. The penalty order/s dated 26.07.2018 is thus barred by time. The decision by the Hon'ble High Court in Grihalakshmi Visions vs. Addl. CIT[2015]379 ITR 100 (Ker), holding that initiation of penalty could only be by a competent authority and, thus, only upon the issue of notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, i.e., on 02.01.2018 (in the instant case), so that the limitation shall expire on 31.7.2018, cannot be regarded as good law in view of the decision in CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.[2016] 386 ITR 71…

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ere caused to be initiated, or30.06.2018. The later of the two dates, i.e., 30/6/2018, would be the limitation date. The penalty order/s dated 26.07.2018 is thus barred by time. The decision by the Hon'ble High Court in Grihalakshmi Visions vs. Addl. CIT[2015]379 ITR 100 (Ker), holding that initiation of penalty could only be by a competent authority and, thus, only upon the issue of notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, i.e., on 02.01.2018 (in the instant case), so that the limitation shall expire on 31.7.2018, cannot be regarded as good law in view of the decision in CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.[2016] 386 ITR 71…

SHRI JAYDEEPSINH VAJESINH DODIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. C.I.T., RANGE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 2429/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Jt. Comm. of Income Dodiya, At. Post Rampura Tax, Chekhla, Tal. Sanand. Vs Range-7(1), Dist. Ahmedabad-382210 Ahmedabad PAN: AFBPD2368C Himatnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar Revenue by: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee again…

ITO - 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S FILM WAVES COMBINES P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

…urt who dismissed the appeal of the revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros. 386 ITR 719. No doubt, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the DR has strongly placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Grhalakshmi Vision Vs. ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 100 in which it is specifically held that the penalty is liable to be reckoned from the notice issued by ACIT but in the instant case also if the period be reckoned from the initiation of notice by ACIT then the limitation period 5 C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 has also been expired that the said decision is contrary to the decision of the Hissari…

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

…e learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.” 17. The learned DR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of GRIHLAKSHMI Vision Vs ADDL CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker), wherein it is held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that t…

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

…e learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.” 17. The learned DR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of GRIHLAKSHMI Vision Vs ADDL CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker), wherein it is held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that t…

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ce we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the penalty u/s 271E of the Act as barred by limitation. We find that the ld DR vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs Additional CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker) wherein it was held that the proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act could be validly initiated only by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and hence the time limit for imposing penalty u/s 275(1)(c ) of the Act is to be reckoned from the date on which the JCIT initiated the proceedings and not from the date of assessment order. The opera…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. PRASHANT SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenues are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Vrindera Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 960/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4(4), A-34, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS4515D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 961/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

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

ITA 3136/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135 & 3136/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02 & 2002-03 Vs. Shri P. Ramesh Kumar, 129-C-7, The Asst. Commissioner of Salem Road, Namakkal-637 001. Income Tax, Central Range, 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-18. [PAN: ADPPR 8882 F] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Mr…

P. RAMESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, SALEM

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

ITA 3135/CHNY/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135 & 3136/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02 & 2002-03 Vs. Shri P. Ramesh Kumar, 129-C-7, The Asst. Commissioner of Salem Road, Namakkal-637 001. Income Tax, Central Range, 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-18. [PAN: ADPPR 8882 F] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Mr…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2