Jain Brothers v. Union of India

77 ITR 107Supreme Court of India1970#1942 most cited

What is Jain Brothers v. Union of India authority for?

Income cannot generally be taxed twice, but this fundamental rule applies only where general words of taxation are interpreted. If the legislature distinctly and expressly enacts provisions allowing for double taxation, such taxation is permissible.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jain Brothers v. Union of India · 77 ITR 107 · Supreme Court · double taxation · income taxed twice · fundamental rule of taxation · express legislative provision · interpretation of tax statutes · Section 115BBE · Section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 68Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 69ASection 132Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66annual letting valueannual valuesection 158bcmercantile system of accountingsection 260section 260arejection of books of accountbook profitsbest judgment assessmentdouble taxation

Judgments citing Jain Brothers v. Union of India

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [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 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…the aforesaid sections and thus resulting in double disallowance. It is pertinent to note that the Act is silent on this aspect. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jain Brothers vs Union of India, [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC): “It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the same subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved the legislature itself has, in ex…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…the aforesaid sections and thus resulting in double disallowance. It is pertinent to note that the Act is silent on this aspect. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jain Brothers vs Union of India, [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC): “It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the same subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved the legislature itself has, in ex…

Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2019/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006. ITA Nos. 5597 & 5598/Del/2018 7 McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd. 13. Reliance is also being placed on the decision in the case of Royal Canin India Private Limited Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 784/Mum/2016 wherein in identical circumstances, the ITAT held as u…

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5598/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006. ITA Nos. 5597 & 5598/Del/2018 7 McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd. 13. Reliance is also being placed on the decision in the case of Royal Canin India Private Limited Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 784/Mum/2016 wherein in identical circumstances, the ITAT held as u…

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5597/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006. ITA Nos. 5597 & 5598/Del/2018 7 McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd. 13. Reliance is also being placed on the decision in the case of Royal Canin India Private Limited Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 784/Mum/2016 wherein in identical circumstances, the ITAT held as u…

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bla Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Mahesh Akhade
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 75(1)

…2 ITR 231 wherein this Court has observed that "It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice". 12. Further, in a decision of this Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India and Others [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under:- "6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax..... If any double taxation is involved, the Legisla…

M/S. Madhuvan Corporation, Vadodara vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 271D

…. Bikaji Dadabhai & Co. (1961) 42 ITR 123. It is true that the scheme of the IT Act, 1961, has been changed and Chap. XXI provides for penalty proceedings separately but notwithstanding such changes the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers vs. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 reiterated that penalty is an additional tax. It is true that penalty proceedings are penal in nature and character, in the sense that it follows harsh consequences. In our opinion, the true construction of a charging provision including a provision for charging penalty must receive the construction ruled by Rowlatt J. If a statute intends to impo…

Jv of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Eliop, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 711/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jv Of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Eliop, Ward-4(2), B-141, Road No. 9D, Vki Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaaaj 5853 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Matter, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- Made By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On Contract Receipts Of Rs.14,87,10,667/- Arbitrarily. 1.1 That, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Upholding Addition By Completely Ignoring The Submission Made By Assessee & Evidences Adduced. The Addition Confirmed Are Solely Based On Conjectures & Surmises. Appellant Thus Prays That Such Addition Being Most Arbitrary, Unjust, Untenable & Bad In Law, Deserve To Be Deleted. 1.2. That, Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- By Disregarding The Submission Of Assessee That Entire

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)

…taxpayer unless the language of the statute is so compellingly certain that the court has no other alternative than to accept it." He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC). The ld AR has also relied on the decision in the case of R. Natrajan Vs ACIT (Third Member, ITAT, Chennai D Bench) in ITA NO. 1058/Mad/2010. The ld AR has also relied on the following decisions : Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. CIT (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006 order dt.19.4.2018 49 ITD 6 Kirtikumar Vinodray, vs ITO (ITAT- Ahmedabad ) M/s De…

Harsha Pravin Shah, Thane vs. ITO - WD - 4(2), Thane

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

ITA 5818/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Harsha Pravin Shah, The Income Tax Officer, C-201, Shambhavnath Building, Vs. Ward-4(2), Thane Near Hain Temple, Virar (W), Thane, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 285B

…nts, the AO estimated the profit @8% which works out to Rs.2,21,440/-. Finally the AO levied a penalty of Rs.1,18,777/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is well-settled that penalty proceedings are independent and separate. In Jain Bros v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that although penalty has been regarded as an additional tax in certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return has been filed. In the instant case, the AO has summa…

ITO 31 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Prayagraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 31(1)(5), Hasmukh Prayagraj Jain, Room No.307, C-13, 3Rd Floor, Bkc, Vs. 224/15, Survy Niwas, Road No.14, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumabi-400104. Pan No. Aflpj4324C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 31(1)(5), Hasmukh Prayagraj Jain, Room No.307, C-13, 3rd Floor, BKC, Vs. 224/15, Survy Niwas, Road No.14, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumabi-400104. PAN No. AFLPJ4324C Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR Assessee by : None. Date of Hearing : 07/11/2019 Date of pronouncement : 11/11/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessm…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd.V/s CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC) 19. CIT V/s SomamrEvergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352ITR592(Bom.) 20. CIT V/s Smt Kaushalya (1994)75 Taxman 549 (Bombay) 21.Maharai Garage & Co. V/s CIT Naqpur 85 taxmann.comSG (Bombay 22. (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC1 Jain Brothers Vs Union of India Regarding limbs of Notice 23. Karnataka High Court Judgment in M/s Maniunatha Cotton Ginning Factory on Penalty for Concelament or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income u/s 271(1)(c) | 29-08-2015). The findings recorded in the assessment proceedings in so far as "concealment of income" and "furnishing of…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07. In the instant case, we are concerned with AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The application filed by the assessee has since been rejected by the ITSC u/s 245D(2C) of the Act, treating it as invalid. 7.4 In the case of Jain Bros v. UoI (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC), it is held that although penalty has been regarded as an additional tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that 14 M/s Dorf-Detal Chemical ITA Nos. 4683 & 4682/Mum/2017 penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return has been filed. In CIT…

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

…d for. (v) However, this would not debar an assesseefrom furnishing evidence to rebut the prima facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. [See Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC)] (vi) Due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions of Section 274 and 275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out he…

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

…d for. (v) However, this would not debar an assesseefrom furnishing evidence to rebut the prima facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. [See Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC)] (vi) Due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions of Section 274 and 275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out he…

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

…d for. (v) However, this would not debar an assesseefrom furnishing evidence to rebut the prima facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. [See Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC)] (vi) Due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions of Section 274 and 275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out he…

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

…d for. (v) However, this would not debar an assesseefrom furnishing evidence to rebut the prima facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. [See Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC)] (vi) Due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions of Section 274 and 275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out he…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…pers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC), CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay), Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT Nagpur 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay), Jain Brothers Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC) and M/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory. 7. In a rejoinder the Ld. counsel files a written submission in response to the decisions referred by the Ld. DR. The same is produced below. S. No. Decision Comments 1. Union of India vs. A favourable view has been taken even after Dharmendra Textile referring to this decision in the case of Meherj…

Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. ACIT, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

…that the assessment of different persons in respect of the same income will not absolve one from liability to be taxed. It has held as follows: “We are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), it should be no more in doubt that the assessment of different persons in respect of the very same income will not absolve one from liability to be taxed de hors the finding recorded in one proceeding with reference to the finding recorded in somebody else’s assessment. If in the case of A it has been found that A has earned income, then the…

Om Gurukripa Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Om Gurukripa Realtors, 8, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 9, Shiv Darshan Co- Vs. Tax-25(2), Mumbai. Operative Housing Society Ltd., Kastur Park, Shimpoli, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400092. Pan No. Aagfg6644L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Janmay Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abhirama Kartikiyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntion in the appellate order whether those notices were served on the assessee. This is a case where a penalty of Rs.72,13,724/- has been levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,33,45,386/-. In Jain Bros. v. UoI (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC), it is held that although penalty has been regarded as an additional tax in certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return has been filed. For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty,…