Jainaravan Babulal v. CIT (170 ITR 399)

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

…s in the appeal against the penalty order . After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs. CIT (1988) 69 CTR (Bom) 201 : (1988) 170 ITR 399 (Bom) the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty under s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 9 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Ho…

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. ITO, SUNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

…ssues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the\npenalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by\nHon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal\nvs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block\nassessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no\nquestion of levy of any penalty u/s.158BFA(2) and therefore it\nis open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the\nassessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty.\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\…

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

…gs in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs. CIT (1988) 69 CTR (Bom) 201: (1988) 170 ITR 399 (Bom) the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty under s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'b…

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT- CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nSh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

…ssues of assessment\nproceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing\nthe legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case\nof P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nJainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the\nblock assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of\nlevy of any penalty u/s.158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the\nassessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the\nappeal against the levy of penalty.\n\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'bl…

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nSh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

…ssues of assessment\nproceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing\nthe legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case\nof P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nJainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the\nblock assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of\nlevy of any penalty u/s.158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the\nassessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the\nappeal against the levy of penalty.\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\…

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

ITA 535/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147ASection 148Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 S K Bhansali & Associates ACIT, Circle - 2, Pune 1194/7, Sujay Housing Society, Vs. Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 PAN: AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 03-07-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.02.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to…

S S BRAHMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 263Section 69

…s in the appeal against the penalty order . After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs. CIT (1988) 69 CTR (Bom) 201 : (1988) 170 ITR 399 (Bom) the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty under s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'b…

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay…

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay…

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1320/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292CSection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1320/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2010-2011 S K Bhansali Associates, The ACIT, Circle-2, 1194/7 Sujay Housing Income Tax Office, PMT Society, Shivajinagar, vs. Pune – 411 005 Bldg., Shankar Sheth Road, Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra PAN AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.…

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analyzing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainarayan Babulal vs CIT, 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no Question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the Question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bomba…

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainarayan Babulal vs CIT, 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set 44 Smt. Aruna Tiwari Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive sup…

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…he penalty order. After 52 Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainarayan Babulal vs CIT, 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon’ble Bombay…

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ferent from those in assessment proceedings. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions: • CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Limited 190 Taxman 157 (Del.) • CIT vs. J. K. Synthetics Limited: 219 ITR 267 (Del) • Jainarayan Babulal vs. CIT: 170 ITR 399 (Bom) 2.24. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), categorically held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings of assessment, it is independent and separate aspect of the proceedings. I…

PARVEEN KUMAR MITTAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 22/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bomba…

ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3156/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay…

VALIANT GLASS WORKS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargvaliant Glass Works Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O. Shankarlal Jain & Income Tax, Associates, 12, Engineer Central Circle-38, Mumbai Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacv 1224 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. M. Doss, (CIT& DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 28Section 80

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bomba…

WESTILIFE DEVELOPMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 5, MUMBAI

ITA 688/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…al issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay…

Jainaravan Babulal v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Jainaravan Babulal v. CIT