Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

118 ITR 326Supreme Court of India1979#1732 most cited

What is Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. authority for?

There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills · 118 ITR 326 SC · ignorance of law is no excuse · no presumption every person knows law · penalty under Section 271(1)(c) · reasonable cause · intention to evade tax · genuine belief · Section 273B · Section 271D · mens rea in tax penalties · ignorance of tax laws

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 269ssection 269tsection 273penalty under section 271dsection 269sssection 253(5)section 273bsection 271dsection 269section 271esection 139(4)non-speaking order

Judgments citing Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1748 & 1749/Del/2012, A.Y. 2002-03 m/S. Sofitra Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, C-34, Zakir Bagh, Range-9 New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAECS1474R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders dated 24.02.2009 and 18.02.2009 of ld. C…

Pv Sankar, Chennai vs. ITO Non-Corporate Ward-18(1), Chennai

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

ITA 796/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. P.V. Sankar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 19, Marvel River View County, Non Corporate Ward 18(1), 2Nd Cross Street, Manapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 125. [Pan:Bbmps6369A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Chandrasekaran, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Guduri, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…ble for giving benefit to the assessee. Therefore, it is opined that the technical lapse should not disentitle the assessee for the benefit of section 54 of the Act. 6.1 in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 118 ITR 326, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “thus there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement; there is no such Maxim known to the law”. In the 5 I.T.A. No. 796/Chny/23 present, it was the only dispute that the assessee had not deposited ₹.1…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 745 & 746/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Balbir Singh, V. Addl. Commissioner of Income M/s Jai Deep Gift Centre, Tax, Moga Range, Moga Taptej Singh Market, Moga [PAN: ASRPS 7279J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee agai…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 745 & 746/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Balbir Singh, V. Addl. Commissioner of Income M/s Jai Deep Gift Centre, Tax, Moga Range, Moga Taptej Singh Market, Moga [PAN: ASRPS 7279J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee agai…

Vishal Bansal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…assessee before Id. CIT(A) are true and correct.” 6. In addition the ld. AR of the assessee has also relied upon the following judicial decision to support the contentions so raised:- • Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttal Pradesh (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) • Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 0471 (SC) • M/s Hossana Ministries vs. ITO(E) TC(Appeal) No. 3 of 2017 (Madras H.C.) • Jayvantsinh N. Vaghela vs. ITO (2013) 40 Taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat H.C.) 6 Vishal Bansal • CIT vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 309 (Mad. H.C.) • Prashanth Projects Ltd. vs. DCI…

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

…is not otherwise a regular assessee and having no exposure in past to 18 Shri Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur. income tax proceedings. It is settled that there is no presumption that everybody knows law as held in the case of M/s MotilalPadampat Sugar Mills 118 ITR 326 (SC). 3.Further w.r.t GOA 3: No adequate opportunity, kindly refer the following chart in place of the chart shown in our earlier written submission at pages 5 & 6. Chart Showing Different notices and compliances: S.No. Date of Last Date As per Compliance Remarks Issue of CIT (A) Made by Notice notice assessee served upon/on 1. 23.01.2021 29.01…

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…argued that the appellant was abroad hence she did not know about the service of notices and that she is ignorant of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326. The decision is rendered in entirely context. The facts of the said case are totally different and deals with promissory estoppel as therein the appellant set up a sugar plant on assurances of Government for some subsidies and later on the Government had second thoughts about the same while the plant was being set up. The current case is routine…

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…provisions of section 269SS of the Act, cannot be accepted, since ignorance of law cannot be accepted as a reason for non compliance with the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, as held in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of UP (118 ITR 326)(SC), and further the appellant is assisted by professional C.A. on tax matters. 16. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case I find the assessee has accepted cash loan of Rs. 1,10,02,000/- from Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi, Allahabad on various dates, which is in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly penal…

Jeenkripa Township Private Limited, Vaishali Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatiya (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 246A

…so many words but it is apparent that he is indirectly making an argument that it cannot be presumed that he knows the income tax law. As the law laid down by honourable supreme court in the case of Motilal Padampath Mills Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC) wherein their Lordship have decided that it can not be presumed that every one knows the law. 5.2.3 The knowledge of law should therefore be presumed on case to case basis, based upon the circumstances of the assessee. Herein, the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company governed by an statue and administered by a board of directors. In compliance t…

Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai vs. Shri Arun Gupta, Chennai

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

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), v. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [PAN: AGRPA-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Re…

Assanar & Sons, Kottayam vs. Jtcit, Kottayam

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

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…held that the bona fide belief constitute all reasonable cause, as provided under section 273B. In these circumstances and also keeping in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1979) (118 ITR 326), it was held that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B and, therefore, no penalty is leviable under section 271E of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly indicate that there was a reasonable cause and, therefore, no penalty is leviable. It is well settled law that “reasonable cause” could be…

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ITA No.704/Bang/2022 JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. #1173, II Floor, Manuvana NFAC/CIT(A) Vijayanagar Vs. Delhi Bangalore 560 040 PAN NO : AADCJ2476K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by…

M/S Balaji Autos, Ambathur vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle - 8, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 535/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I. T. A. No.535/Chny/2022 (&नधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s. Balaji Autos, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 301, M.T.H Road, Income Tax, Kamarajapuram, Non-Corporate Circle-8 Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 053. PAN: AAGFB 8281N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent by…

Shri Jagpal Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 758/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us The Contentions Raised In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed By The Assessee Along

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome tax is a complex subject and lack of its knowledge constitutes a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement: Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) "...It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maula, J. pointed out in Martindale vs. Falkner (1846) 2 CB 706: "There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to…

Preeti Madhok, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw -2 (5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not

ITA 752/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.752/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs.Preeti Madhok, V. The Income Tax Officer, ‘G’ Block, Flat No.1504, Non-Corporate Ward-2(5), Metrozone (Next To Vr Mall), Chennai. No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Bcopm 7655 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" एवं "ी अिनकेश बनज", माननीय "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.752/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs.Preeti Madhok, v. The Income Tax Officer, ‘G’ Block, Flat No.1504, Non-Corporate Ward-2(5), Metrozone (Next to VR Mall), Chennai. No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [PAN: BCOPM 7655 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ App…

Manish Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. Addl. CIT, (TDS), Allahabad

ITA 216/VNS/2019[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 May 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 194ISection 271CSection 273BSection 274

…ons of Section 271C is subject to provisions of Section 273B. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1979)118 ITR 326(SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the provision of Section 271C is subject to provisions of Section 273B , and assessee was individual having no knowledge about Section 194I , which itself constitute a reasonable cause u/s 273B . The ld. Counsel for the assessee made prayers for deletion of penalty. The ld. Sr. DR on the other…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 Akash Education & Development Trust, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner No.22nd Ward, Prashanth Nagar, of Income Tax, Devanahalli, Central Range-2, Bengaluru – 562 110. Bangalore. PAN: AACTA 7888E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AR Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

The University of Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Addl. Dir. of Income Tax-(Exempition)-RG.-2, Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1465/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

For Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 104Section 143Section 148Section 272A(2)(e)

…the present case duly falls under the ken of aforesaid case laws wherein similar penalty has been deleted. No contrary decision 11 The University of Mumbai has been produced before us. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' [1979] 118 ITR 326 that there is no presumption that everyone known law. Moreover, here assessee has also referred to provision of section. 139 and has pleaded that all entities whose income is exempt under clause (23C) of Section 10 were not required to file return of income. The Ld.CIT(A) has noted the following submissions of the assessee in this regard. “Furni…

Handy Waterbase India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 422/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 2

…lowed such deduction in subsequent years by following the principles of Doctrine of promissory estoppels. The ld.AR for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilalal Padampat Sugar Mills Limited v. State of UP [1979] 118 ITR 326 submitted that whatever be the nature of function, the Government is discharging, it is subject to the rule of promissory estoppels. Therefore, the privilege granted to the assessee u/s.10B of the Act cannot be withdrawn by subsequent clarification or amendment due to the doctrine of promissory 18 I.TA. Nos.672 & 1228/Chny/2018 & 422/Chny/2020…