PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd.

147 Taxmann.com 220High Court2023#4419 most cited

What is PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Appeals related to statutory limitation periods for penalty proceedings are decided by considering relevant High Court judgments.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon · statutory limitation · penalty proceedings · Section 271DA · Section 269ST · Delhi High Court · Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

451 ITR 108

Sections most often in play

Section 275(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271ESection 269SSSection 269TSection 143(3)Section 274(2)Section 153A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 275(1)satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 271dasection 275section 269stsection 269tsection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 271d

Judgments citing PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd.

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

…petent Officer recommending issuance of showcause notice: (a) PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Private Limited (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) (b) PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty-orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment-order, there is no initiation of penalty-proceedings by AO; the AO has merely mentioned that the provisions of section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JC…

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

…petent Officer recommending issuance of showcause notice: (a) PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Private Limited (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) (b) PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty-orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment-order, there is no initiation of penalty-proceedings by AO; the AO has merely mentioned that the provisions of section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JC…

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. JCIT, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion LSC, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGCM6447E Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepsh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/02/2024 Date of pronouncement 13/02/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3446/Del/2019 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31…

Sunil Dandriyal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

…29/11/2017 would become barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd. reported in 451 ITR 108 (Delhi), wherein the following facts were prevalent:- Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos.8069 & 8070/Del/2019 Sunil Dandriyal vs. JCIT (a) Quantum Proceedings were completed in December 2008 (b) Penalty Proceedings u/s 271D of the act were initiated by the Ld. AO in December 2008 (c) Show cause notice was issued by the Ld. JCIT u/s 271D of the Act on 24/0…

Sunil Dandrayal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

…29/11/2017 would become barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd. reported in 451 ITR 108 (Delhi), wherein the following facts were prevalent:- Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos.8069 & 8070/Del/2019 Sunil Dandriyal vs. JCIT (a) Quantum Proceedings were completed in December 2008 (b) Penalty Proceedings u/s 271D of the act were initiated by the Ld. AO in December 2008 (c) Show cause notice was issued by the Ld. JCIT u/s 271D of the Act on 24/0…

Shri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinders P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Corporate Cirlce-6, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

…quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., reported in [2017] 394 ITR 312(Delhi) and also in the case of PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd., reported in [2023] 451 ITR 108 (Delhi). 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee on merits of the case submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied by the AO u/s.271D & 271E of the Act, even though, the assessee has explained before the authorities that transactions between the assessee company and its Managing Director cannot be treated as loans & advances in…

Shri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinders P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Corporate Cirlce-6, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3222/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

…quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., reported in [2017] 394 ITR 312(Delhi) and also in the case of PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd., reported in [2023] 451 ITR 108 (Delhi). 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee on merits of the case submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied by the AO u/s.271D & 271E of the Act, even though, the assessee has explained before the authorities that transactions between the assessee company and its Managing Director cannot be treated as loans & advances in…