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 366,314 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

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)

…or. (v) However, this would not debar an assessee from 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. 14 (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 ou…

Confluence Project Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4489/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhi Rama Kartikeyan-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…91 ITR 519 5. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Mumbai Tribunal 187 TTJ 722 Ltd. Vs ACIT 6. Jayant B. Patel Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal The Ld. DR defended the same by placing reliance on the stand of Hon’ble Supreme court rendered in Jain Brothers Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107. 6.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record and deliberated on the judicial pronouncements as cited before us. The basic facts are not under dispute. It emerges that the assessee has revised its computation of income during assessment proceedings on the basis of audited financial statements which has…

Chitralekha, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6849/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafc-1152-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…nd the assessee was well aware of the charges for which the penalty was being initiated and therefore, there was no substance in the submissions. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Jain Brothers Vs. Union of India [1970 77 ITR 107]. 4.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. The undisputed position that emerges is that the penalty was initiated by Ld. AO against quantum addition in the quantum assessment order, vide para 5.4, by observing as under: - Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) initiated separately for furnishing inaccu…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nces that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. 262 CTR 604 (Delhi):- The issue is related to deduction u/s. 80HHC and the assessee has submitted evidence in support of export/transmission. 11. 77 ITR 107 (SC):- Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. CIT(A) or no material has been referred by the ld. CIT which is not warranted either in law or on facts. I.T.A No. 1357/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 12 Mr. Pranjal Patel vs. Pr. CIT 12. 74 TTJ 007 (Allahabad Bench):- It is related to the expression record as used in section 263(1) to include…

Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-004166-004166 - 2006Supreme Court19 Apr 2018

Bench: Proceeding Further, It Is Pertinent To Set Out The Facts In A Summarized Way To Appreciate Properly The Issue Involved In This Instant Appeal:- 1 Digitally Signed By Asha Sundriyal Date: 2018.04.19 17:26:37 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 256(1)Section 80Section 80T

…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 and Others vs. 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. 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 i…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6141/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…stified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). This decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal(supra). 5.3 It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jain Bros. vs. Union of India. (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC) that though penalty has been regarded as an additional tax in a 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 ITA No. 6140 & 6141/MUM/2014 7 5.4 Let us go back to the beginning. In the instant case, the assessments w…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6140/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…stified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). This decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal(supra). 5.3 It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jain Bros. vs. Union of India. (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC) that though penalty has been regarded as an additional tax in a 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 ITA No. 6140 & 6141/MUM/2014 7 5.4 Let us go back to the beginning. In the instant case, the assessments w…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…Maneklal Parikh tax in a 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 (Jain Bros. v. Union of India, (1970) 77 ITR 107, 116 (SC)). For all practical purposes, proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanating from proceedings for assessment, are independent aspects of the proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the evidence as disclosed from the records independently without in any way considering the earlier findings in the quan…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5901/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…(SC) " M/s St. Soldier Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 10 TMI 781 (ITAT, Delhi) " Shri Amit Jain Vs ACIT (2015) 4 TMI 790 (ITAT, Delhi) " CIT-I, Mumbai Vs M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 2117 of 2012 " Jain Bros. Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) " Devsons (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand Ind…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…(SC) " M/s St. Soldier Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 10 TMI 781 (ITAT, Delhi) " Shri Amit Jain Vs ACIT (2015) 4 TMI 790 (ITAT, Delhi) " CIT-I, Mumbai Vs M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 2117 of 2012 " Jain Bros. Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) " Devsons (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand Ind…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5899/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…(SC) " M/s St. Soldier Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 10 TMI 781 (ITAT, Delhi) " Shri Amit Jain Vs ACIT (2015) 4 TMI 790 (ITAT, Delhi) " CIT-I, Mumbai Vs M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 2117 of 2012 " Jain Bros. Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) " Devsons (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand Ind…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…r. - (v) However, this would not debar an assessee from 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 o…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Ltd

ITA - 1030 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…r. - (v) However, this would not debar an assessee from 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 o…

Ecs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1248 / 2008HC Delhi26 Oct 2009
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…r. - (v) However, this would not debar an assessee from 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 o…