Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD\nCapital & Finlease Ltd.

378 ITR 614High Court2015#2260 most cited
51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 80

Sections most often in play

Section 269TSection 271ESection 271DSection 275Section 269SSSection 153ASection 275(1)(c)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 275section 245hsection 269tsection 271epenalty under section 271drevision under section 263section 261section 129

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD\nCapital & Finlease Ltd.

3I Infotech Digital Bps Limited Formerly Known As 3I Infotech Bpo Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, 25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5196/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5196/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3i Infotech Digital BPS Limited, vs. Addl.CIT 25 (1), (formerly known as 3i Infotech BPO Ltd.), Delhi. Lower Ground Floor, Building No.E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi – 110 055. (PAN : AAACL0415D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Order : 24.07.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT ME…

3I Infotech Digital Bps Limited Formerly Known As 3I Infotech Bpo Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, 25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5195/DEL/2024[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5196/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3i Infotech Digital BPS Limited, vs. Addl.CIT 25 (1), (formerly known as 3i Infotech BPO Ltd.), Delhi. Lower Ground Floor, Building No.E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi – 110 055. (PAN : AAACL0415D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Order : 24.07.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT ME…

Saluja Construction Company Limited, New Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-77, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3493/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Saluja Construction Company Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 3, Munirka Marg, Range-77, New Delhi – 110 038. Delhi. Pan: Dels02044A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, Advocate; Shri Raina Majumdar, Advocate; Shri Nikhil Sharma, Advocate & Shri Tushar Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 201(1)Section 269Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saluja Construction Company Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, 3, Munirka Marg, Range-77, New Delhi – 110 038. Delhi. PAN: DELS02044A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, Advocate; Shri Raina Majumdar, Advocate; Shri Nikhil Sharma, Advocate & Shri Tushar Kalra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is pref…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…peals we answer the questions raised in favour of the assessee and against the Department." It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (13-10-2015] as under:- "10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalt…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…peals we answer the questions raised in favour of the assessee and against the Department." It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (13-10-2015] as under:- "10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalt…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…peals we answer the questions raised in favour of the assessee and against the Department." It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (13-10-2015] as under:- "10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalt…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…peals we answer the questions raised in favour of the assessee and against the Department." It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (13-10-2015] as under:- "10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalt…

Manish Sharma, Kota vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 619/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Sharma Vs. The JCIT, 309, Masjid Road, Keshavpura, Central Circle, Kota. Udaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AWUPS7536B Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Gopichand Saraswat, C.A. Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 25/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated…

ITO, TDS Ward-75(2), New Delhi vs. Kushal Infra Project Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8071/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Naveen Chandraito, Tds Vs. M/S. Kushal Infra Project Ward – 75(2), Industries India Ltd. Aayakar Bhawn, Lakshmi 209, Uday Plaza, 16-A, Nagar, New Delhi -110 092 Uday Park, New Delhi-110 049 Pan : Aacck 3933 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dayainder Singh, Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 2(14)Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)Section 35D

…der was 31.03.2013 or 30.06.2014. Order passed on 14.07.2016 was time barred as per following decisions : i. PCIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)- Delhi High Court ii. PCIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 614 – Delhi High Court iii. PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd. [2023] 451 ITR 108 – Delhi High Court 6.1 In the Assessment Order penalty under section 271C of the Act was initiated for non-compliance of section 192(1). Penalty levied for TDS non-compliance of contractual payments. No contractual payments in P&L account and the total expenditures…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 547 / 2024HC Delhi06 Nov 2024
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…ice on 04.08.2014? 11. The question as to when a penalty proceeding can be stated to be initiated is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd.; (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Del). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: “10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. I…

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

…(c) had been construed as the date on which the AO wrote letter to the Competent 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…

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

…(c) had been construed as the date on which the AO wrote letter to the Competent 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…

ITO, Ward- 76(1), New Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshito Vs. Turner General Ward – 76(1) Entertainment Networks New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National Highway-8, Mahipalpur – 26, Pan No. Aaccn 3434 E New Delhi- 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Shri Sudip Loth, Adv. Revenue By Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.6597/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, New Delhi In Appeal No. 289/16-17 Dated 16.08.2017 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Penalty Order U/S 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred 2

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

…e 31.03.2015 and since the penalty order was passed on 25.02.2016, it would be barred by limitation. We find that this dispute has been directly addressed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. reported in 378 ITR 614 (Del.) wherein the limitation period mentioned in provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act was subject matter of interpretation in the context of levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:- 5 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted…

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Smt. Jaya Mogra, Vs DCIT, 22, Mehtaji Ki Badi, Central Circle-02, Udaipur Moomal Tower, Saheli Marg, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AHZPM 2350 B Assessee By Sh. Rakesh Lodha, CA Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 12/07/2023 Date of 20/09/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur dated 28.06.2019 […

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…h Court. 4. Citizen Co-operative Society Vs. ACIT – ITAT Hyderabad Bench. 5. Ch. Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. ITO – Order dt.01.12.2015 of ITAT Hyderabad Bench. 6. CIT Vs. M. Ramakrishnan – 378 ITR 437 of Madras High Court. 7. PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd – 378 ITR 614 of Delhi High Court. 8. ACIT Vs. BBL Foods Pvt. Ltd. – order dt.23.05.2008 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 9. CIT Vs. Akhilesh Yadav & Dimple Yadav – 379 ITR 177 of Allahabad High Court. 10. PCIT Vs. M/s. Radha Krishna Vihar – order dt.13.02.2017 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 11. Padan Chand Pungliya Vs. ACIT – 181 ITD 261 of ITAT Jaipur Bench. 12. CIT…

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ner income-tax recommending issue of show cause notice for initiating ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court following its own decision in Pr. CIT vs. JKD and finlease Ltd 378 ITR 614 has held that the orders passed under section 271D and 271E of the Act would be barred by limitation if they were passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the learned Assessing Officer informed the learned Addl. CIT about the offence and to show cause the notice under section 274 of the Act. Apparently in this case, the first n…

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1217/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ner income-tax recommending issue of show cause notice for initiating ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court following its own decision in Pr. CIT vs. JKD and finlease Ltd 378 ITR 614 has held that the orders passed under section 271D and 271E of the Act would be barred by limitation if they were passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the learned Assessing Officer informed the learned Addl. CIT about the offence and to show cause the notice under section 274 of the Act. Apparently in this case, the first n…

Shri Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. C.I.T., Range-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 2429/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Jt. Comm. of Income Dodiya, At. Post Rampura Tax, Chekhla, Tal. Sanand. Vs Range-7(1), Dist. Ahmedabad-382210 Ahmedabad PAN: AFBPD2368C Himatnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar Revenue by: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee again…

M/S Manlife Trading Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (TDS), - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Manlife Trading Pvt. Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax (Tds)-1(3) Off. No.105-B, 65, Kusal Mumbai Bhavan 5Th Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm5805C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Kalpesh Manohar Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Sanghvi Tax (Tds)-1(3) (Proprietor: Kms Mumbai International) Shop No.2, 65, Kushal Bhavan 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Atbps3875K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 201(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…mpleted before 31/03/2016 or within six months from 29/02/2016. Before us, the penalty was initiated with the order passed u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act 29.2.2016. The ld. AR relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd(2015)378 ITR 614(Delhi) and PCIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products Pvt Ltd.(2017) 394 ITR 312(Delhi). The ld. AR therefore, prayed that the penalty order may kindly be quashed as being barred by limitation, as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid two decisions wherein it has been held that initiation of penalty has to be taken from the date of the…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennur vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1726/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…enalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood products Pvt.Ltd. 394 ITR 312 (Del) & CIT Vs. JKD Capital ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 14 & Finlease Ltd. 378 ITR 614(Del) wherein it was held that date on which the AO informs the Officer competent to impose penalty u/s.271E of the Act, would be date of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271E of the Act for the purpose of computing period of limitation in terms of Sec.275(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Bangalore ‘B” Be…