ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation v. DCIT (353 ITR 206)

Q: What is ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation v. DCIT authority for?

An assessment order directing the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is deemed to constitute the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1B). This applies even after amendments to the law.

Q: How many judgments cite ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation v. DCIT?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation v. DCIT (353 ITR 206), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(2A), Section 115JB, Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 154.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Hon'ble High Court held that position regarding the recording of satisfaction is no different post-amendment. I have gone through this decision also and I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 amendment. I have gone through this decision also and I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 amendment. I have gone through this decision also and I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/AHD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat Ahmedabad Vide Ita No. 3289/Ahd/2002 & 3343/Ahd/2002. Addition On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Depb For The Purpose Of Rs.11,41,480 Deduction U/S.80Ia Deduction U/S.115Jb(2) In Respect Of Book Losses Of Pradeep Drug Rs.3, 39,12,399

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(16)Section 274Section 80I

…. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. regarding the recording of satisfaction is no different post-amendment. I have gone through this decision also and I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction…

SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , HUBBALI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2050/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shri Shantaraj P. Pola, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.145, “Shri Nidhi”, Income Tax, Bafna Layout, Central Circle, Gudihal Cross, Navanagar, Karwar Road, Hubballi – 580 025. Hubballi – 580 024. PAN: AHDPP 8605Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02…

SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2049/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shri Shantaraj P. Pola, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.145, “Shri Nidhi”, Income Tax, Bafna Layout, Central Circle, Gudihal Cross, Navanagar, Karwar Road, Hubballi – 580 025. Hubballi – 580 024. PAN: AHDPP 8605Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02…

SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBLLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2048/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shri Shantaraj P. Pola, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.145, “Shri Nidhi”, Income Tax, Bafna Layout, Central Circle, Gudihal Cross, Navanagar, Karwar Road, Hubballi – 580 025. Hubballi – 580 024. PAN: AHDPP 8605Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02…

SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2047/BANG/2017[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shri Shantaraj P. Pola, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.145, “Shri Nidhi”, Income Tax, Bafna Layout, Central Circle, Gudihal Cross, Navanagar, Karwar Road, Hubballi – 580 025. Hubballi – 580 024. PAN: AHDPP 8605Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02…

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar). He further referred to the provisions of section 271(1B) of the Act and pointed out that once the penalty proceedings have been initiated, then there is deemed satisfaction in the case. 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that even in the case of deemed satisfaction, it is the requirement of…