M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. v. CIT (Mad)

283 ITR 230High Court2006#10483 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 276cdeletion of penaltypenalty proceedings initiatedsection 57(iii)section 244afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)appeal before cit(a)service of noticesection 56levy of penalty

Judgments citing M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. v. CIT (Mad)

NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…initiation of penalty proceeding was definite that the appellant has concealed income. Therefore, no infirmities is caused in the initiation of penalty proceeding and the penalty proceeding initiated are valid in law. In M Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. v. CIT (Mad) 283 ITR 230 and Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT (All) 294 ITR 185 Hon'ble courts have held that mentioning of the words "penalty proceedings initiated separately in assessment order is sufficient for invoking penalty action. 4.7 While imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 46,85,932/- the AO has recorded that it is beyond doubt that the assessee has concealed…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntion and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words - "penalty proceedings initiated separately "in assessment order is sufficient for invoking penal action M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs CIT (Mad) 283 ITR 230 Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs CIT (All) 294 ITR 185 It is not necessary that before feeling satisfied regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntion and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words - "penalty proceedings initiated separately "in assessment order is sufficient for invoking penal action M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs CIT (Mad) 283 ITR 230 Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs CIT (All) 294 ITR 185 It is not necessary that before feeling satisfied regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntion and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words - "penalty proceedings initiated separately "in assessment order is sufficient for invoking penal action M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs CIT (Mad) 283 ITR 230 Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs CIT (All) 294 ITR 185 It is not necessary that before feeling satisfied regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ntion and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words - "penalty proceedings initiated separately "in assessment order is sufficient for invoking penal action M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs CIT (Mad) 283 ITR 230 Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs CIT (All) 294 ITR 185 It is not necessary that before feeling satisfied regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty and before issuing the consequential notice, the ITO should issue another notice to the assessee and hold a preliminary equity regarding the necessity of initiating proceedings…

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rt had an occasion to consider the issue on the levy of penalty in the decisions reported in M.S. Mohammed Marzook v. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 254 (Mad): M.Shahuk Hameed Batcha v. ITI [2007] 292 ITR 585/[2008] 171 Taxman 19(Mad.) and M.Sajjanraj Nahar V. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230/155 Taxman 536 (Mad), wherein, this court had elaborately considered the case law on the subject and pointed out to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan (supra), rendered after the introduction of Explanation to section 271(1) of the Income tax Act. This court held that when the concealment of the income was with ref…

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rt had an occasion to consider the issue on the levy of penalty in the decisions reported in M.S. Mohammed Marzook v. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 254 (Mad): M.Shahuk Hameed Batcha v. ITI [2007] 292 ITR 585/[2008] 171 Taxman 19(Mad.) and M.Sajjanraj Nahar V. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230/155 Taxman 536 (Mad), wherein, this court had elaborately considered the case law on the subject and pointed out to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan (supra), rendered after the introduction of Explanation to section 271(1) of the Income tax Act. This court held that when the concealment of the income was with ref…

AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…25 (All); ii. Becker Gray And Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO And Ors., 112 ITR 503 (Cal); iii. Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal No. 698 of 2007 decided on 18-02-2011 (Cal); iv. M. Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 283 ITR 230 (Mad); v. M.S. Mohammed Marzook (Late) And Another Vs. ITO, 283 ITR 254 (Mad); vi. M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008 decided on 22-08-2017; vii. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 decided on 30-10-2013. 5. We have heard the sub…

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 153CSection 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(11)(c)Section 271A

…that the recording of intiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is sufficient enough to satisfy the requirement of the compliance of law. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs. CIT 283 ITR 230 (Mad). The ld. DR also relied in the order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT 294 ITR 185 (All). The ld. DR also relied in the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT 86 ITR 557 (SC). He vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 6. We have heard rival contentions of…

R. VIJAYASEKHARAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

ITA 1841/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Duraipandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 133Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…2013. :- 4 -: 02.11.2011 for copy of sworn statement recorded in survey operation and admitted "10,00,000/- to tax. The ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M. Sajjanraj Nahar vs. CIT 155 Taxman 536 (Mad)/283 ITR 230 and minimum penalty of "3,39,900/- u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income to the extent of "10,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative substantiated argu…

M.Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. v. CIT (Mad) (283 ITR 230) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax