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.

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

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…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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…

Priyadarshini Education Society, Davangere vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2448/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

…ase as the same is issued much after the completion of TDS proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act and not during the pendency of these proceedings. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) observed at para 11 thereof as under:- ITA Nos.2446 to 2448/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 9 4.3.6 Therefore, in our considered view, it is futile to contend that the date of initiation of proceedings is the date the Addl. CIT issued the show cause notice i.e., 22.01.2016. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’…

Priyadarshini Education Society, Davangere vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2447/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

…ase as the same is issued much after the completion of TDS proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act and not during the pendency of these proceedings. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) observed at para 11 thereof as under:- ITA Nos.2446 to 2448/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 9 4.3.6 Therefore, in our considered view, it is futile to contend that the date of initiation of proceedings is the date the Addl. CIT issued the show cause notice i.e., 22.01.2016. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’…

Priyadarshini Education Society, Davangere vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2446/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

…ase as the same is issued much after the completion of TDS proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act and not during the pendency of these proceedings. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) observed at para 11 thereof as under:- ITA Nos.2446 to 2448/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 9 4.3.6 Therefore, in our considered view, it is futile to contend that the date of initiation of proceedings is the date the Addl. CIT issued the show cause notice i.e., 22.01.2016. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’…

Kanakara Rajendra Prasad Reddy, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Lakshmi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271Section 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…ime limitation period. This is important to note that the decision in case of Mahesh Wood Products (Supra) was rendered by the Hon'ble High Court by relying on the decision in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi). The decision in case of CIT vs Hissaria Bros. (Supra) was duly considered in the above referred decision in case of JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd(Supra), and the court decided that the date of initiation of Penalty would be date of issue of letter by the AO to the Addl CIT recommending the issuance of notice of penalty. Anyhow due to differ…

Suparshwa Constructions, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3083/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 279S

…s beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In support of her submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. Pr.CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd. [(2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi)]. 2. Pr.CIT v JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [(2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi)]. 3. CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [(2013) 352 ITR 327 (Rajasthan)]. 4. CIT v. Narayani & Song (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 73 taxmann.com 21 (Calcutta)]. 5. Lodha Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 34 ITR(T) 157 (Mum. Trib.). 6. M.D.S University v. ACIT [(2014) 49 taxmann.com 297 (Jaipur-Trib.)]. 7. ACIT v. Smt. Meetu Agarwal [(2015) 42 ITR(T) 520 (L…

M/S Agro Tech Cold Storage Private Limited, Bellary vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Rang E, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 269ASection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

…submission of the Ld. AR that the order was passed after the statutory period of six months provided u/s.275(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ITA.110/Bang/2017 Page - 3 matter of PCIT v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [378 ITR 614] and PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd [394 ITR 312] had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the initiation of proceedings would initiate, when the reference was made by the AO to the JCIT. Our attention was drawn to para 9 in the matter of Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd (supra) to the following effect : 9. However, this que…

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…rce as against the Mrs. Sonal Shah & Mrs. Tarulata Shah deducting the tax at source. 5. not considering the Delhi High Court Judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd.–(2017) 394 ITR 312 and PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd. – (2015) 378 ITR 614 wherein it was clearly held that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in that case was time barred since he should have passed the order within 6 months from the date on which he received the letter from the Assessing Officer and that the limitation began from the date of the letter from the assessing officer 6. not appreciating various dec…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…rce as against the Mrs. Sonal Shah & Mrs. Tarulata Shah deducting the tax at source. 5. not considering the Delhi High Court Judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd.–(2017) 394 ITR 312 and PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd. – (2015) 378 ITR 614 wherein it was clearly held that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in that case was time barred since he should have passed the order within 6 months from the date on which he received the letter from the Assessing Officer and that the limitation began from the date of the letter from the assessing officer 6. not appreciating various dec…

Sanghvi Premises P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ASection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Sanghvi Premises Addl. CIT, Pvt. Ltd., Central Range-6, 6th Floor, Gr Floor, Veetrang Vs. Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001 PAN: AAACL 0598D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been prefer…