PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

432 ITR 84High Court2021#515 most cited

What is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

185

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty show-cause notice · specifying limb · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · vitiates penalty proceedings · Section 270A · 270AA immunity

Also reported as

108 Taxmann.com 597

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 153ASection 250Section 147Section 270AA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record dateimmunity under section 270aasection 270a(8)section 270aasection 270a(6)section 271(l)(c)section 271(l)section 270a(9)section 274penalty u/s 270afurnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Arun Dwivedi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6123/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6123/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Arun Dwivedi, Acit, B-12, Vivekanand Puri, Vs. Circle-9(2), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi. Pan No.Aalpd4998F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…AO to clearly indicate his satisfaction, as to which limb of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered qua the respondent/assessee, placed reliance on the following judgments: Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [20191 108 taxmann.com 597/[2021] 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) and Mohd. Farhan A Sheikh v. Dy. CIT [20211 125 taxmann.com 253/280 Taxman 334/434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB). 13. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, the Tribunal concluded, that the penalty order could not be sustained, and consequently allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. 14. Mr Kumar, in support of his appeal, has vehemently argued…

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 9328/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…e income sought to be concealed by furnishing inaccurate particulars, such income so determined per the quantum appeal order dated 18.12.2017….” 6. Faced with the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we quote PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the AO has not specified the corresponding limb in his section 271(1)(c) penalty show cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly. 7. All other…

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 10. Considered the rival submissions…

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 885/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 10. Considered the rival submissions…

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 10. Considered the rival submissions…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 10. Considered the rival submissions…

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 61(4), Delhi

ITA 567/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 271(1)(c)

…ceedings therefore. Relevant notices dated 30.03.2015 and 30.12.2017 form part of the records before us. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. 5. Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.566 & 567/Del/2025 & 568 & 569/Del/2025 had not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notices forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.416/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Panther Investrade Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 121, 1st Floor, Radha Bhavan 7(1), 653, 6th Floor, Aaykar Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 023, 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP3259R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.50/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 416/MUM/2025) (A.Y. 2003-04) प्रत…

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.416/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Panther Investrade Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 121, 1st Floor, Radha Bhavan 7(1), 653, 6th Floor, Aaykar Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 023, 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP3259R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.50/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 416/MUM/2025) (A.Y. 2003-04) प्रत…

Azad Coach Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6075/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A. Amer Road, Jaipur, Circle-1(1), Jaipur -110054 New Delhi Rajasthan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca3035A

For Appellant: Smt Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication. 4. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that th…

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. DCIT/ National Faceless limited b-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) south West Delhi 110006 PAN No. AABCD7720L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, CA Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed a…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6119/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Pramod Sangwan, Vs. DCIT, Panchwati Colony, Central Circle-16, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BVPPS2256D Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Jain, Adv Shri Samyak Jain, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These appeals in ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/202…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6118/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Pramod Sangwan, Vs. DCIT, Panchwati Colony, Central Circle-16, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BVPPS2256D Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Jain, Adv Shri Samyak Jain, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These appeals in ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/202…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Pramod Sangwan, Vs. DCIT, Panchwati Colony, Central Circle-16, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BVPPS2256D Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Jain, Adv Shri Samyak Jain, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These appeals in ITA Nos. 6117, 6118 & 6119/Del/202…

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanparveen Tayal, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 2, H.No.246/G/Ist Floor, Faridabad. Sector 10, Dlf, Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agrpt5617P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2024 Date Of Order : 17.07.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions and relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the mater…

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…noted, the Special Leave Petition filed against the Judgment in SSA’s Emerald (mentioned above) was dismissed via order dated 05.08.2016.” 21. The High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 432 ITR 84 Delhi, followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and held as under:- “The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v…

Emmsons International Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 3560/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Emmsons International Ltd., 17, Community Centre, Circle-7(1), Zamrudpur, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaace0442K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 271(1)(c)

…he entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently argued that such a defect is only a procedural one only which is not fatal to the impugned penalty. 5. Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 2 | P a g e (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his section 271(1)(c) penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. W…

The Delhi Building & Others Construction Workersw Welfare Board, Delhi vs. DDIT(E), Trust Cirtcle-IV, New Delhi

ITA 963/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…o this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ action levying the impugned penalty. 5. Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb(s) in his twin penalty show- cause notices forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly.…

The Delhi Building & Others Construction Workersw Welfare Board, Delhi vs. DDIT(E), Trust Cirtcle-IV, New Delhi

ITA 962/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…o this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ action levying the impugned penalty. 5. Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb(s) in his twin penalty show- cause notices forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly.…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2413/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)

…venue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 30.03.2015 herein. 6. Faced with this situation, I admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show- cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty(ies) proceedings itself. Ordered accordingly. 7. Al…